Category: Singapuraku

Woman Fined For Curry Puff Factory In Rental Flat – Most Empathise With Her

Robiah Lia Caniago.

Does that name mean anything to you? Probably not.

Robiah, 40, is an Indonesian woman, who is married to a Singaporean man. They have two children together – a son, nine-years old, and a daughter, seven.

When her husband was jailed in 2012 for drug offences, Robiah had to find a way to feed her children and herself.

So, she decided to make curry puffs from her two-room rental flat in Lengkok Bahru to sell to nasi padang stalls, The New Paper reported on Monday.

Her puffs were apparently so good that in October 2013, a man she had recently met offered to go into business with her.

“He bought cooking pots and pans for her kitchen,” The New Paper said.

Soon, she was doubling her production of the puffs, selling not only to the nasi padang stalls but also to private customers.

But perhaps of the popularity of her curry puffs, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) came to know about it.

Eventually, the authorities fined her S$3,000 last Wednesday.

Unable to pay the fine, Robiah was sent to jail for five days.

Her relatives had to care for her children while she was incarcerated.

She was released early yesterday morning.

You can read The New Paper’s report here: “She ran 2-room flat curry puff ‘factory’”.

So, what do Singaporeans think about it?

Well, from what can be gleaned online, many are sympathetic of what she did – that while she may have contravened the law, she was nonetheless trying to feed her children while her husband was in jail.

On The New Paper’s Facebook page itself, the comments mostly criticised the authorities for bringing the legal action against Robiah.

And this one from Allan Tan:

The support for Robiah has also spilled over to the SGAG Facebook page, where the page’s admin posted:

And some who commented said:

And at least two bloggers have written to support Robiah.

Over at the “Singapore Beacon” blog, the writer says, “The NEA should have some compassion in just issuing her with a warning rather than taking her to court. As a result she was fined $3,000.”

The blogger added, “It was not like she tried to sell off her children in order to make ends meet.”

Another blogger, Alvinology, said, “She did not steal, nor did she harm anyone directly.”

“Here’s someone who would work hard to earn her own living rather than leech off public assistance; but sadly, she broke the law doing so,” the blogger said.

“By Singapore’s law, she is definitely in the wrong for running an illegal kitchen, evading taxes as well as food and safety inspections to ensure hygiene.

“Morally, if she kept her kitchen and operations clean, there is not much harm done to society. After all, she is earning an ‘honest’ living.

“You know those grandmothers and aunties who make pineapple tarts and other goodies at home to sell during the Chinese New Year festive period? What Caniago did is the same as what they do, except that they are not caught.”

What can we do to help Robiah and her children?

Alvinology suggests this: “Savvy businessmen who read about this news report may want to invest to set up shop with her. If she was to move back to Indonesia, her two children will be estranged from their mother.”

Let’s hope the authorities will have mercy on the poor woman who was just trying to feed her children and perhaps help her find a more sustainable – and legal – way to do so.

The above article was first published on Public Opinion.

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

June 2, 2015
Survey Finds That Local Muslim Respondents For The Donning Of The Hijab In Schools, Autonomy Of Madrasahs

Between 6th to 13th March, we ran a survey to identify Singapore Muslim community perceptions on several socio-political issues. The survey was based on the Suara Musyawarah report, responses to the report and several AMP studies of the Malay community.

Summary

The survey indicates strong concerns on the cost of living, perception of discrimination and the community’s legal and education standing.
Study

The online survey was published on Almakhazin.com. Surveygizmo.com provided the engine.

Five broad categories were addressed: socio-legal, Leadership, Foreign workers/ demography, economy and education. Responses are based on the Likert system with respondents indicating on a 5 point scale from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”.

This survey is by no means a comprehensive study of the Muslim community. It serves as an indication on several specific issues. Over the next few months, we plan to expand and deepen the understanding of community preferences through with more community surveys. We hope that it will provide a little insight as to how sections of the community perceive various issues.

We used social media to gather respondents for the survey. Invitations to participate were placed in several Singapore Muslim pages such as Suara Melayu Singapore, Almakhazin SG and Singapore Muslim Students Overseas. None of the groups are based on any political or religious persuasion.

According to ShareThis count, the survey page was shared 603 times. It was shared through Facebook 578 times, by Twitter 18 times, once by email and Liked 235 times. 6 shares were unaccounted by ShareThis.

Caveats

As is inherent in any online survey tool, we rely on respondents’ self identification (religion, gender, age etc) and responses. There is no way to determine if what they declare for themselves are true. However, this is not a unique problem. It exists in online and offline surveys.
There was also initial concerns of multiple responses from the same person. To minimise the possibility of such behaviour, we filtered responses through IP address. Only the last response per IP address is recognised.

Responses

Total number of responses: 334
After filtering repeats through IP address: 314
Muslim respondents: 313
One respondent identified as Christian. Since the survey is on the Muslim community, we had to remove the response.

Demography
Age
The youth age group (defined here for those between 18-35) makes up a slight majority of respondents. However, there was strong representation from 35-54 year olds at 38.7%.

Gender
There was an over-representation of male respondents. 2/3 of respondents identified as male. The survey did not seek specifically male or female groups or participants.

Highest qualifications
About a third of respondents have tertiary qualifications with Bachelors degree making up a quarter of respondents. A further 34.5% have diplomas.

Race
As expected, a large majority of respondents (78.6%) identify as being Malays. 10.2% as Indians.

Categorisation
The survey was set up into 5 categories:
1. Socio-legal
2. Leadership
3. Foreign workers and demography
4. Economy
5. Education

In this analysis however, we will recategorise the survey. There are five categories that make up our analysis:
1. National issues
2. Community concerns- government
3. Social contract
4. Community concerns-Internal
5. Autonomy

National issues

Economy
In terms of the economy, there appears to be uncertainty in the way the government is managing it even as the respondents tend to believe it is not going very well. There are also concerns with the way the CPF is managed. However, there is a strong concern with the cost of living in Singapore.

96.8% of respondents are worried about the cost of living in Singapore with 76.4% stating they strongly agree with the statement “I am worried about the high cost of living.”

However, slightly less than half of the respondents believe the government is not managing the economy well. 30.4% are neutral and about 20% think the government is managing it well.

62% are concerned about the way CPF is managing their funds with 33.9% indicating they “strongly disagree” with the statement “I am confident with CPF’s management of our funds.”

Foreign workers
There appears to be concern on the number of foreign workers and as it relates to the percentage of Malays.

59% disagree with the statement “I believe the government is right in its foreign worker policies.” 77% feel there are too many foreign workers in Singapore.

About 63% are “concerned that the number of foreign workers will result in a reduction in the percentage of Muslims in Singapore.”

Concerns-government
Policies that affect the community negatively appear to get a strong response.

There is strong support among the respondents for hijab to be allowed in school and at the workplace. In reference to the ban of hijab in school, 90% of respondents “believe that Muslim students should be allowed to wear hijab in school” with 68.1% saying they strongly agree. 8.6% were neutral to the question. Only 1.3% disagreed and no one strongly disagreed.

A stronger response was received for question on whether anyone should be denied employment because of hijab. About 98% believe that no one should be denied employment due to hijab with 87.9% believing strongly. 1% were neutral and only 0.6% (even split) believing they can be denied employment due to hijab.

89% “believe that Muslims should be allowed to enlist in any branch of the armed forces.”

Further to the concerns of discrimination, 93% “believe that Singapore should enact an Anti-discrimination law to ensure no one is discriminated.”

Social contract
Article 152 of the constitution states:
“Minorities and special position of Malays
152.
—(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.

(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.”

Signifying the strong sense of the existing social contract 75% of respondents believe in retaining Article 152 of the constitution. Only 3% believed the Article should not be retained.

About 20% believe the government is living up to its responsibilities as specified in the Article. 34% are neutral about the government’s performance and 43% believe the government has not lived up to it.

We received several queries in the comment section indicating the respondents’ unfamiliarity with Section 152.

Community concerns- Internal

The Malay statistic for imprisonment and educational underachievement has been a disconcerting discussion in the community for some time. Another issue that has received some attention is of the erosion of Malay language use in Singapore.

With 79% being concerned about the over-representation of Malays in prison, it indicates not only the concern of the severity but also the recognition that the Malays are over-represented.

Similarly, the perception of Malay educational underachievement is strong with 83% indicating their agreement that it is a concern. Only about 4% are not concerned about the over-representation in NA/NT streams and ITE and the underrepresentation in Universities.

However, it should be noted that with a growing recognition of the value of ITE education, respondents may have indicated their lack of concern due to their acceptance of ITE as a viable and valuable educational pathway.

There is also a strong position taken on Malay language. 80% are concerned about the erosion of the language in Singapore. 14% are neutral.
The concern however may also be due to the greater public statements and campaigns encouraging the use of the language. With enhanced recognition, the belief in its lack and improper use may have become stronger.

Autonomy
There is also a strong sense of the necessity of community autonomy from government control. About 80% of respondents believe madrasah should be independent of government control and for the highest Islamic authority to not be appointed by the government. About 63% also believe that community leaders should not be involved in politics.

Discussion
There appears to be disenchantment within the community in various government policies. There also is a strong sense of communal concern among respondents. This can be due to the possibility that those who participate in such surveys to already be concerned about the questions asked, that the issues are current and significant or there is a socio-political alignment among those who participate in such community based surveys.

It may also be due to respondents who participate in social media based discussions to be more concerned about the issues in the survey.

The demographics indicate a wide variety of respondents. If this can be taken as a cross section of Malay community response, then it indicates a substantial disagreement with current policies especially with regard to community-government relations.

There appears to be a greater sense of disenfranchisement between members of the community and the government. Discrimination, control and high cost of living apart from community underachievement are real concerns that need to be resolved.

This survey provided the broad strokes in community perception. We will follow up with surveys that go in depth on the issues discussed above with special attention on community-government relations.

The survey results can be viewed at:
http://app.surveygizmo.com/reportsview/?key=345590-4188929-4606949383d247e91eebedc49140b4e8

Source: http://almakhazin.com

June 2, 2015
Beware Of New Ponzi Schemes In Singapore!

Hi,

I am writing to you in the hope that you will do a good deed and inform fellow Singaporeans not to fall victim to further ponzi schemes, following the high profile cases of Sunshine Empire, Profitable Plots, Geneva Gold, SureWin4U and the more recent Orchard Road Property scam, where the founder has reportedly gone missing with $60 million.

There are currently at least a few more potential scams that are brewing in Singapore, one of which has already blown up in Taiwan but has somewhat successfully insulated the news from its Singapore members.

Below are their descriptions in brief.

———————

NUMBER ONE – MAXIM TRADER (http://www.maximtrader.com/)

They claim to be a group made up of expert Forex traders and analysts with many years of experience. The CEO is a Singaporean called Andrew Lim. Since a few years back, they have been going around Singapore, Malaysia, Hongkong, China and Taiwan to offer investment packages to the public which promise generous returns of up to 8% per month. The condition is that the investors must have their funds locked up for a minimum period. They have managed to grow extremely fast through a generous commission system they offer to existing clients to get in new clients.

What’s Fishy about Maxim

First, Forex trading is a very volatile ‘business’. It is not only illegal in various countries, but also nearly impossible to offer ‘guaranteed’ returns due to the volatile nature of foreign exchange fluctuations.

Secondly, if Maxim Trader is handling large amounts of investments, it is going to have problems filling orders on a timely manner. Due to this, they should rationally offer a lower rate of returns (due to lower trading volumes) to be conservative and responsible to their clients if they are really trading.

Thirdly, Maxim Trader is trading through its own brokerage firm – Maxim Capital. This means that any funds remitted to Maxim Capital can be manipulated to show false trading results. Even if a client is seeing trading results through a 3rd party software, this can be easily manipulated on the brokerage firm’s side.

Fourthly, on it’s own website, Maxim Trader’s mother company – Maxim Capital – claims to be a listed company. Sure, it seems to be listed. But try to find more substantial information like its cash flow, financial statements, business prospectus, etc and you will find that you cannot find any. Now, even if they are really listed, so what? Remember the biggest Ponzi scheme ever that was a big listed company – Enron?

Fifth, Maxim Capital was founded by a Singaporean called Andrew Lim –https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-lim/26/793/5aa. Yet there are conflicting reports on other sites that Maxim Capital is actually owned by Royale Globe Holding Inc. This is confusing because this particular company is actually a ‘shell’ company with no business operations, and the president is a 25 year old Thai guy called Yupa Sathapornjariya. So this means that a 25 year old Thai guy owns a shell company called Royale Globe which owns Maxim Capital, both ‘listed’ companies with no visible business operations, models and financial statements.

Now Here’s the Big One

A few days ago, the Taiwan authorities officially arrested the founders of Maxim Trader Taiwan on suspicion of operating a ponzi scheme. They found wads of loose cash lying about, folded into flower bouquets and stuffed into suitcases.

Below is a news article on the case.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150529000097&c…

Below is a Taiwanese TV news report on the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-3pElYfTOU

Conclusion

Strangely, the news does not seem to have reached Singapore, and life is going on as usual over here.

This may be due to the fact that the Taiwanese authorities are not communicating with Singapore’s CAD, and that their news are mostly in Chinese.

But one thing is clear; the shit is going to hit the fan big time very very soon.

If you have money in Maxim Trader, get it out now! If they refuse, report to CAD immediately on grounds that they have already gotten in trouble in Taiwan.

———————

NUMBER TWO – ONE LIGHTINING (http://one-lightningcorp.com/)

One Lightning is a MLM group from the Philippines offering monthly returns on your investments. Although they offer a range of products, it is not necessary to keep purchasing these products or introduce other people in order to get these monthly returns.

What’s Fishy about One Lightning

All legitimate MLM companies need to keep selling products in order to stay afloat and profitable. They charge a premium for their products, and give a generous commission to their affiliates to re-sell their products, in the process saving up on advertising and generating good income for everybody who sells their products. To sell products continuously, most good MLM companies focus on developing good products that people would want to use for the long term.

Strangely, One Lightning is not product centric.

Instead, when they first started out, they offered only ‘investment’ schemes that allowed investors to put in various sums of money for monthly returns based on what they put in. Although anyone who put in money does get some products, the company is not focused on selling the products and does not require their members to do that. These products are also poorly packaged and seem to be pretty generic products.

Although it is also not necessary for existing members to introduce new investors, One Lightning gives out generous commissions to members for doing that.

Due to the generous commissions for introducing friends, the monthly returns without the need to sell products, One Lightning has managed to grow very fast within a few months of inception in the Philippines and has even infiltrated other countries like Malaysia and Singapore.

Question – how can One Lightning be sustainable if it is –

– Not researching and developing good products that people want to buy and use for the long term

– Offering monthly returns to its members without requiring them to sell products or introducing new members (note however that its members want to introduce new members for the generous commissions)

Where is One Lightning’s money coming from in order to pay off the monthly returns to its investors if it does not have a sustainable business model built around its products? The later investors of course! Classic ponzi scheme style.

Now Here’s the Big One

In March 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Philippines officially published notices that they have served a Cease and Desist order on One Lightning for offering authorized investment schemes.http://www.sec.gov.ph/notices/advisory/2015AdvisoryNo2_One_Lightning_Cor…

There are also many articles on One Lightning’s illicit activities that can found through typing in ‘one lightning sec’ or ‘one lightning scam’ in Google.

As of last check, this Cease and Desist order has not been lifted. This means that it is officially illegal in the Philippines to be introducing One Lightning to anyone.

Yet, in Singapore, it seems that the group has been actively looking for new members, probably because it is not banned in Singapore yet.

Conclusion

If you are invited to a One Lightning event, don’t go. Report the event to the CAD for them to carry out a thorough investigation. Warn your friends.

If you are already caught in a One Lightning investment scheme (scam), try asking for your money back or report them to the CAD if you are refused.

———————

NUMBER THREE – SINGLIWORLD (http://singliforex.com/)

SingliWorld smells just like Maxim Trader and operates almost in the same fashion, except on a smaller scale.

What’s Fishy about SingliWorld

Besides all the similarities it bears to Maxim Trader, the biggest alarm is that SingliWorld seems to prefer trading exclusively through a newly established Forex brokerage firm called TFX Global – http://tfxglobal.com/about-us

Question – If SingliWorld is a legitimate Forex trading company, why is it not using an established and reputable Forex broker like FXPrimus or Forex.com? Why work with a new company with no track records and may potentially screw up their trading or even run away with their money?

Answer- Maybe they belong to the same owner(s)?

There is an excellent article on SingliWorld here which discusses the ownership very clearly. Do read it and form your own opinion.

http://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/singliworld-review-forex-investment-thr…

Now Here’s the Big One

Both Singliworld and TFX Global are on MAS’s Investor’s Watchlist.http://www.mas.gov.sg/IAL.aspx?sc_p=T

If they are indeed legitimate, why not clear it up with the MAS?

Disclaimer –

This article does not in any way confirm that SingliWorld is a scam, but whatever is presented here can be researched off the internet, and you are free to form your own opinion on the company.

Conclusion

Before the shit hits the fan and they reveal their true colours as a ponzi scheme, withdraw whatever you can and run, or report to the CAD if you have trouble withdrawing your money.

Tan
A.S.S. Contributor

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

June 2, 2015
Driver Allegedly Assaulted In Dispute Over Parking Space

An argument between two drivers over a parking space at a carpark ended up with a bruised face and a near-miss “accident” for one.

The incident is said to had happened at carpark of Parkland Green, East Coast Park on 30 May (Saturday) around 6:10pm.

Mr Yak was waiting for a parking lot after dropping off his wife and kids at the car park when a silver colored car came driving in against the flow of traffic.

The car then parked in front of the space that Mr Yak was waiting for with his hazard light turned on. As a result, Mr Yak drove his car forward, in front of the silver colored car and wound down his car window to confront the driver.

The driver in the silver colored car is said to be a middle-aged Caucasian, about 35 years old. And there were two kids seated at the back of the car.

According to Mr Yak, the driver came down from his car and starting scolding him, “an idiot for being slow” resulting in an argument between the two. All of a sudden, the driver punched him through the car’s window and walked back to his car.

The force of the punch was so great that it broke Mr Yak’s glasses and resulted in bleeding of his face.

Despite being stunned from the punch, Mr Yak hurried down from his car and tried to take down the other car’s license plate number.

“I came down from the car and tried to take down his car number. I stood in front of his car and he just stepped on the accelerator, trying to run me over while escaping.” said Mr Yak.

He added, “Eyewitness told me his car plate was SGC9154K, but I am not 100%,” There was no video camera on his dashboard to record the incident.

Mr Yak was subsequently treated at Changi Hospital for his injuries.

Mr Yak recalled that there were some people around the area, as the car park was situated just in front of the Starbucks and St Marc cafe. He is, however, uncertain if there was any closed-circuit surveillance in the area as there was no electronic gantry at the carpark.

He has since made a police report on his assault and beseech for eyewitness of the incident to come forward and give an account of the incident. People with information can write into TOC at [email protected] to link up with Mr Yak.

TOC has written to the police on the reported case and will update here when they have replied.

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

June 2, 2015
Roy Ngerng: PAP Makes Singaporeans Pay High Taxes And Earn From It

The PAP government in Singapore keeps masquerading to Singaporeans that tax is low in Singapore.

Indeed, the personal income tax that Singaporeans pay on a per capita basis is low – it is one of the lowest among the highest-income countries.

However, what the PAP does not tell you is that Singaporeans pay much higher indirect taxes and high social contribution rates.

In fact, Singaporeans pay more than 4 times higher indirect tax than personal income tax. Where other high-income countries pay about the same amount of indirect tax as personal income tax, Singaporeans actually pay more than 4 times more.

Not only that, Singaporeans also pay more than 3 times higher social security into the Central Provident Fund (CPF) than personal income tax. Again, where other high-income countries pay much lesser into social security or on average, about the same as personal income tax, Singaporeans are made to pay more than 3 times more.

In total, Singaporeans thus actually have to pay nearly 8 times more into indirect tax and social security than personal income tax. This is when other high-income countries only pay an average of about twice as much or at most four times as much than personal income tax.

So, you see, it is not true that Singaporeans pay low taxes. The income tax rate is low but what Singaporeans have to pay into indirect tax and social security is nearly 8 times more, which is a lot.

The PAP keeps saying that personal income tax is low and thus Singaporeans should be grateful. But this is how the PAP is trying to trick you. Personal income tax is low but it is not for you. Only a very small and select group of people benefit from the low personal income tax – the rich.

Indeed, Singapore’s top personal income tax rate is the lowest among the developed countries – 20%.

But do you know even the highest income earners in Singapore do not have to pay the top rate of 20%? In fact, for someone who earns US$300,000 a year in Singapore, he or she only need to pay 14.1% – which is much lower than what a similar income earner in the other developed countries have to pay, and is also the lowest among the developed countries.

Not only that, when compared to the top tax rate of 20%, a US$300,000 earner in Singapore only needs to pay 70.5% of the top tax rate. This is the lowest proportion among the highest-income countries, where a similar income earner would have to pay an income tax of about 90% of the top tax rate. In other words, high-income earners get to get away with it, more than the other developed countries.

In comparison, for the majority of Singaporeans, we have to pay 37% of our wages into CPF. As compared to the rich who only have to pay 14.1% of their salaries into tax, the majority of Singaporeans are sacrificing more than twice as much into CPF.

There is the rhetoric that the CPF is not tax but as I will show you soon, the CPF is a tax and the majority of low- and middle-income Singaporeans are paying more than the high-income earners, the PAP among them, into tax.

So, you see, personal income tax rate is low, sure. But it is not for you. It is only for the very rich. Not only is personal income tax low for them, it is the lowest among the developed countries.

‪#‎SayNotoPAP‬

Source: Roy Ngerng

June 2, 2015