We have successfully conducted our Singapore Budget 2019 Forum today.

We thank all who have attended and also great appreciation to those who have helped to make this possible.

The following is our official statement on PAP government's Budget this year:

Budget 2019: Political Gimmicks without Bold Vision

Expansionary Budget with Money locked up in CPF and Medisave?

1. Finance Minister Heng Swee Kiat has declared that his Budget 2019 for Singapore government is an “Expansionary” budget and he cited the projected budget deficit of $3.5 Billion after taking into account of the net effect NIRC and Special Transfers of $3.6 Billion as supporting fact. However when we put the details of the Budget at closer examination, we have come to the conclusion that this Budget is NOT the usual “Expansionary” budget but just full of political gimmicks without bold vision.

2. A government Budget is an important tool of fiscal policy that is used to manage the economy. An Expansionary Budget would result in fiscal stimulations of the Nation’s economy in anticipation or direct mitigation of any potential economic slowdown or recession. But in Minister Heng’s Budget 2019, there is no mention of any job creation initiative nor bold vision for Singapore’s Future Economic development direction.
3. Most of the “additional spending” announced for the populistic Merdeka package ($6.1B), Long Term Care ($5.1B) and other the various injections of money into healthcare, workfare, schemes for SMEs ($4.6B) and education (Total of $15.3B of Special Transfers) are either just money transfers credited into CPF or Medisave accounts or deferred expenditure across a few years which do not have an immediate direct impact on overall spending in the economy.

4. It basically means that these money are effectively an “expected surplus” (over the announced $3.5B deficit) ultimately stashed away into the reserves via such Special Transfers arrangement.

5. Thus we do not really see this year’s Budget as “Expansionary” but rather a pack of Budgeting Acrobatic Gimmicks which channeled money back into the reserves masqueraded as “Goodies” for Singaporeans without real positive impact on the Economy.

Cost of Living

6. In a normal free market economy, inflation is normally caused by an excess demand on goods and services. This will drive up the cost of living for everyone.

7. However, in Singapore, inflation is mostly caused by the PAP government and its Government Linked Companies. The rise in water tax, electricity tariffs, public transport fares, healthcare cost, the rapid increase in rentals by GLC REITS, petrol and diesel prices etc. are the direct results of PAP governance.

8. How could the derisory $300 GST voucher cover the inflation caused by all these increases?

9. The BEST gift to ALL Singaporeans is NO GST instead of GST vouchers!


Cost of Healthcare

10. Any increase in healthcare subsidies for Merdeka generation could easily be offset by another round of increase fees in polyclinics and public hospitals.

11. We have witnessed how fees at public polyclinics and hospitals increased right after the last Pioneer Generation Package was announced in 2015.

12. At many instances, the fees at these public “restructured” healthcare entities are even higher than private clinics or hospitals before subsidies were taken into account.

13. There is a need to rethink whether the current model of “Restructured Hospitals” really serve Singaporeans’ interests at all.



Adverse Impact on SME

14. There are a couple of new but insignificant programs initiated in this year’s budget to help SME and workers to cope with changing dynamics of the economics.

15. However, out of the $4.6B slated to help both SMEs and workers over next three years, only $100million was put into funds for helping SMEs to upscale.

16. Although we agree to the overall strategy of reducing dependency of Foreign Workers in the long run, but we do not think it is a good move at all to apply such one-size-fit-all policy of reducing the Dependency Ratio Ceiling to cut across the board for the whole Service Sector.

17. Local SMEs are always grossly disadvantaged by the foreign workers policy whereby larger foreign companies enjoy concessions through government special incentives or technical advantage in sourcing their foreign labor via internal transfers from foreign bases.


Where are the Good Jobs?

18. Within the Service Sector, there are many sub-sectors which have very different labor situations. Singaporeans generally shy from certain industry or service sectors like hospitality, Food and Beverage sectors while there is a great underemployment for Singapore PMETs who cannot find jobs in other service sectors like banking, finance or IT etc.

19. A more calibrated approach should be implemented to focus more on reclaiming PMET jobs for Singaporeans in service sector instead.


Tax Cut for Taxi Companies while Higher Tax on Taxi Drivers?

20. The increase of diesel tax will affect SMEs greatly with an increase in business cost despite of the cut in road tax for diesel vehicles.

21. We are particular concerned on the impact on taxi drivers. While the PAP government gave a generous reduction in Special Tax on Diesel Taxi by $850, but this may only benefit taxi companies while taxi drivers suffer higher diesel price due to the double of diesel tax.


The Real Vision and Plan to Cut Pollution

22. A great percentage of commercial vehicles used in Singapore runs on diesel engines. The increase of Diesel Tax will not have significant effect on lowering the consumption of diesel for these commercial vehicles because the demand is totally inelastic.

23. Raising Diesel Tax now without providing a viable alternative to businesses will only result in a drastic rise in business cost. This may affect our leading position as logistic hub in Southeast Asia.

24. PAP government lacks the bold vision to explore clean alternatives for commercial vehicles running on diesel.

25. The key problem with diesel engines lies with the toxic cancer-causing nitrogen oxide emission. Thus we should phase out diesel vehicles from our roads totally instead of just raising diesel tax.

26. In fact, our long term plan should aim to reduce air pollution on the roads by phasing out both petrol and diesel vehicles totally by replacing them with electric vehicles.

27. Instead of harming our SMEs and economy by raising diesel tax now, we should be putting more investment and focus efforts to implement a comprehensive plan to promote electric vehicles by building relevant infrastructures and battery waste management system.

28. Singapore is lagging behind countries like China and Norway when it comes to implementation of a systematic plan of replacing diesel and petrol vehicles by electric vehicles to cut down harmful air pollution. This is due to the lack of bold vision and political will of PAP leadership.


CPF Inadequacy

29. About 75% of retirees are getting less than $500 from CPF payout. This is totally inadequate which resulted in many retirees living in absolute poverty.

30. It is an irony that Singaporeans had paid 37% of their monthly salary into CPF but yet they could not retire comfortably with a good payout from CPF.

31. It basically means that the CPF system along with the HDB and Medisave policies had failed to secure a decent retirement for most Singaporeans.

32. This will have to be looked into and only with Bold Vision could a government come up with bold plans to revamp the whole structure.


Long Term Care for Ageing Population

33. We will be facing the Silver Tsunami very soon when the baby boomers from 1950s to 1970s start to reach retirement age.

34. Putting billions into funds as future subsidies is a passive act which lack forward looking planning vision.

35. We would rather spend these billions now to build up both infrastructure and human resource capacity for long term care to prepare for the inevitable Silver Tsunami in the coming decade.


Pre-School Childcare and Education vs Fertility

36. The cost of Pre-school education is extremely high even after subsidies.

37. This is one important factor among the many issues that cause low fertility rate in Singapore.

38. Instead of putting more money in Edusave, it is time to focus to solve this pertaining issue of Pre-school education.

39. A cheap or even free Pre-school education system for all will also level up for children from poor families which will improve future potential social mobility.


Our Concerns:

HDB

40. There is no mention on any plan for PAP to resolve the huge problems which they have created in the past via Asset Enhancement Scheme.

41. No funds is allocated for any initiative on solving the time bomb of a huge stock of ageing HDB flats in the coming decades.

42. On the contrary, the Ministry of National Development has the biggest cut in its budget by 19.3%!


Financing Huge Infrastructure Spending via Borrowing

43. It is mentioned that part of the huge infrastructure spending like Changi Terminal 5 will be partially financed by borrowings.

44. It is also mentioned that Government will provide guarantee to these loans.

45. Is there a necessity for Government to finance such infrastructure spending when we have a huge National Reserve well above $500B?

46. Financing such infrastructure through borrowing would mean such spending on extremely expensive mega projects will escape rigorous scrutiny by parliament while the government has taken up huge potential liability as a guarantor.

47. The lack of accountability to parliament when the government takes up such huge liability will result in unchecked ex-Budget spending which could go wrong.


Conclusion: A Budget that Lacks Bold Vision

48. We are utterly disappointed by this year’s Budget which basically mimics the 2015 Election Budget without Bold Visions and lacks New Ideas.

49. This Budget contains a pack of gimmicks that attempt to make Singaporeans feel good and make believe that they had gained something substantial from it. However, most of these goodies are deferred goodies.

50. Unfortunately, these political gimmicks are done at the expense of the need of REAL immediate expenditures on various areas which we have listed out here.

51. Singaporeans deserve a better deal than what the current Budget could offer.
52. The reduction of GST relief and duty free alcohol concession for travelers is the best key feature to sum up this Budget 2019 – Small Mindedness without Bold Vision.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
For CEC People’s Power Party Singapore

TOTD: May Day Lunch Box Economics

Thought of the Day - Lunch Box Economics

The Prime Minister's Stealing Advice

It is shocking to hear our Prime Minister trying to lecture our workers on how we should “steal other people's lunch boxes” in this year May Day celebration.

There are a few issues here:

1) To many Singaporeans who have lost their jobs to some cheap foreign substitutes, all thanks to PAP’s FT policy which encourages and allows millions of foreign labour to come to Singapore and work under the guise of job creation for Singaporeans, this is a totally ironic statement that needs cynical mocking! PAP government is the one who helps Foreigners to “Steal” our lunch boxes right at our doorstep and yet the PM has the cheek to tell us go and steal othet people's lunch boxes? That's basically shameless!

2) PAP government has basically stolen part of our workers’ lunch boxes recently, practically reducing the size of our lunch boxes by increasing Water Fee by 30%, Electricity tarriff, cooking gas and we expect more to come。。。 maybe GST or public transport fares. Can PAP stop stealing our luncheon meat from our lunch boxes?

3) In all international free trade agreement negotiation, all countries will try very hard to protect their own citizens’ lunch boxes but only PAP would sell our workers out by agreeing UNLIMITED foreign labour to come to this tiny red dot to steal Singaporeans’ lunch boxes! Oh while talking about this, I wonder how PAP and PM are going to negotiate more favorable FTA terms when other countries will now be extremely wary about PAP‘s intention of stealing their citizens’ jobs!?

4) Most probably our PM has run out of ideas in ensuring our own citizens can have meaningful well paying jobs insteas of facing rising unemployment rate. Lim Swee Say could actually say that jobs are not lacking but it is Singaporeans who do not have the skils! Hey, Singapore is a First World Country with best universities, tertiary institutions and education system in this part of the world! Many people from surrounding third world developing countries yearn to study in our schools! How could our education system unable to provide the necessary knowledge and skills for Singaporeans to get decent paying jobs while foreigners from third world countries could have those skills instead? He is basically insulting our intelligence!

5) The economic theory of Free Trade and Globalization isn't based n stealing other people's lunch boxes. If that is the case, no country would want to open up trade. The fundamental Free Trade is not based on competitive advantage but rather comparative advantage. It strives to provide win win situation instead of cannibalism if lunch boxes from others. Maybe our PM and the whole cabinet of million dollar ministers should go back to school learn basic economics fundamental





The Incoherent Excuses

First, it was Minister Lim Swee Say who said there is no lack of jobs in Singapore but it is Singaporeans "lack of skills" to take up these jobs.

Then we have Minister Ong Ye Kang who said Singapore capped the number of Singaporeans studying in local universities at 30%!

Now, it seems that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing! If PAP is to cap the number of Singaporeans from obtaining the highest learning of knowledge and skills at 30%, no wonder we are lack of "skills" while we have to import so many Degree Holders (some with dubious certificates) from Third World Countries!

Job Reality on the Ground

We seemingly have a bunch of ministers who have totally lost touch of the ground. On one hand the Ministers think by capping the number of Singaporeans going to local Universities could prevent more Singaporeans from being unemployed graduates, thinking that by having more poly and ITE graduates with skills training, will make them more employable while the other Minister thinks that there are jobs but Singaporeans lack the skills...

If 70% of Singaporeans are already sent to poly and ITE, why are Singaporeans still lacking of skills?

The truth is, everyone who have education in Singapore should have acquired a certain skill sets and definitely so for university graduates.

The truth is, most of the time Singaporeans without a university degree will be scorned and salaries suppressed because employers will say "at this salary of xxx I can employ a FT with degree or even a master degree blah blah blah"....All thanks to PAP's extremely lax FT policy!

The Major Irony

Ironic... while PAP keeps talking about continuous Life long learning and upgrading, but in the end they want to restrict the number of people going to local Universities at 30%!

And PAP always lament Singapore does not have even "Talents" thus needs Foreign Talents from Third World countries but now we know it is PAP itself which deliberately restricts Singaporeans from grooming into Talents by depriving them a place in Universities via setting this limited quota!

Do you see the True Color of PAP yet?

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Back to Fundamental of CPF

Thought of the Day -
Back to Fundamental of CPF

I was talking to a friend over CPF issues recently and it seems that I have some of the more "radical" thought over CPF.

CPF was supposed to be meant for retirement financing but in the end, it becomes some sort of "piggy bank" for PAP as well as Singaporeans for many purposes.

First, PAP allowed you to use CPF to buy properties. Most Singaporeans are happy with such arrangement as they feel that they will be able to own a property in their lifetime. I also used up all my CPF available to buy property but that is because I do not trust PAP with my money. This is another issue for another day.

Then PAP says that you can use your parents' CPF or your own CPF to pay for higher education. On top of that, you can use your CPF to pay for your parents, children, brothers, sisters etc medical fees!

Singaporeans thought that these are all "good arrangement" but the truth is, it will create two/three problems:

1) Over consumption of housing, education and medical care
2) Depleted CPF for your retirement
3) Kicking the can down the road

On top of that, it will create other problem of another dimension:

1) Over reliance on CPF money for anything, everything
2) Weakening of Financial management skills and planning
3) Total lack of saving habits

Most financial planners will tell you that you will need to save a certain percentage of your salaries every month for future retirement. It is normally set at 20% to 25% of your income, depending on your income level.

But due to PAP's conflicting policy needs, it has totally messed up the CPF system and in the end, it resorts to setting some unrealistic arbitrary "minimum sum" which many lower income earners could not meet mainly due to the over consumption of housing. i.e. they were allowed to buy properties which they couldn't afford and shouldn't buy in the first place, if they were to stick to the 25% savings rule for retirement!

The only right way to due with this situation is set the saving rate for CPF at 25% (contribution of employee and employer add together) while banning people from using it for just any other thing, especially for housing and medical fees for other family members!

Employer's CPF contribution should stay at 17% while employees' contribution should be cut from 20% to 8%. This would mean that employees or Singaporeans will have additional 12% of their income in cash. If they need to buy property and use it to pay their mortgage, they can use this additional 12% cash to do so. However, they should not use any CPF money for mortgage payment.

For young people, they should start to learn how to do financial planning and I reiterate this point that basic financial planning concepts and knowledge should be taught in the common school curriculum! They should make it a habit to save for down payment for their first property purchase and plan for their mortgage payment as well. In general, for middle-lower income earners, they should not be using more than 35% or 40% of their income to pay for mortgage. This will prevent them from over-consuming housing and it will keep property prices in check.

If they intend to start their own little business, they could save up these extra 12% of their income for future business plan!

Our property prices have been artificially pushed up due to the excess liquidity which PAP allows Singaporeans to use CPF in doing so. This applies to prices of Medical care as well. It is precisely that Singaporeans do not "feel the direct pinch" from using their CPF money to pay for Medical care or housing, they tend to not mind spending excessively on these products and services. Of course, HDB and hospitals alike, are also happy to charge higher prices because "it is affordable" to Singaporeans due to the excess liquidity provided by CPF!

PAP has abused the system in skewing the "affordable" argument. It is not affordable when Singaporeans are paying more than 35% or 40% of their salary for a 30 year mortgage. That is totally rubbish argument of affordability because if you purchase your property at the age of 30, by 60 years old, you will have very little left in your CPF account for retirement!

The proper way of inducing better financial management by Singaporeans is to make them manage their finances according to the fixed CPF retirement saving rate (which could be adjusted according to income level) so that they would make better rational choice in their spending in housing, education as well as medical care.

This may sound "radical" to many unthinking Singaporeans and they may just jump up and down denouncing such plan but this is the only right thing to do in the face of ageing population.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Misguided Education System

Thought of the Day - The Misguided Education System

I could really empathize with Aqil's family in not getting a place for his son in the nearby school.

When I was young, I face similar problem of not able to get a place in the primary schools in Toa Payoh basically due to the Two is Enough policy. As the 8th child of the family, I was systemically discriminated by the various institutions, including the schools.

My parents were worried that their young son could not get education and will end up as road sweeper one day. After the neighborhood schools have rejected my application, even though my kindergarten result (not PAP kindergarten!) was above average, my parents have to go all the way to upper paya lebar road Elling North Primary, to enroll me. Students at my age had already started school but I was still knocking door.

This school was the Primary School which brothers and sisters studied while we were still living in Tai Seng almost 7 years ago.

I was lucky that the Principal Mrs Chiang had agreed to accept my application. Though this was just a village school with limited resources and hardly a good reputation but quite a lot of "Sam Seng" or gangsters, I am extremely grateful to my Principal for accepting me despite the fact that the classes were full. This is despite of the fact that I needed to travel by bus to and fro for 45 min each on my own at the age of 7.

An education is an important start for any child in his or her long life journey. To deprive a child the BASIC education is just like taking away his future. Even more so for those with special needs.

I won't be what I am, going through the SAP school and graduating with an Honours degree if it was not for the grace of my Primary School principal, Mrs Chiang.

Thus whenever I see schools rejecting students for whatever reasons, forcing them to be out of education, I felt extremely sad and angry. Especially for those schools which reject or getting rid of students for fear of affecting their KPI, I just find it totally unacceptable. Those principals and teachers have basically lost sight of what education is all about... It is not about KPI nor plainly following rules. It is about helping to build someone's life.

TOTD: The Failure of PAP's Scholar-System

Thought of the Day

No matter how smart, intelligent or brilliant you were in your teens, scoring As and A stars in your exams, once you are being "anointed" with the label "scholars", you may just find yourself entrenched and kept in a environment which will not be conducive to your proper development of mental and social faculties.

That label of "scholars" along with the mindset of "Natural Aristocracy" will destroy your common sense and empathy towards the people you were supposed to lead.

It has proven in history, the best leaders come not from the group of "elites" but rather the intelligent people from the streets.

In our Singapore's system, the PAP government tries very hard to "monopolize" all the talents we have in our system by installing the elitist streaming in our education system. They will give scholarships to those identified "early talents" and bond them to civil service or statutory boards. It is one way to monopolize talents and keep them for PAP's selection so to prolong its monopolistic rule over Singapore.

However, just look at the numerous scholar-Generals, or rather, what we call "Paper Generals" we have today.

These scholars were holed up in SAF and lack the exposure of the "REAL WORLD" out there. They have wasted their time in SAF without exposures to the REAL world outside their war gaming computers. Their administration of the SAF is based on simple top-down military command hierarchy without the need of more sophisticated management skills.

Thus, it is no wonder that when they were treated like some Elitist Gods and sent to the various GLCs or statutory boards, they screwed up badly. No matter how intelligent or smart you are, as long as you are not groomed in a proper way, in the most appropriate way but only the SAF way, you will be made redundant and useless outside of SAF in the end, regardless of your rank. This is the sad state of affairs for Singapore. We have wasted so much money and most importantly, these "once potential talents" by keeping them in the worse place for development, so much so that they are causing harm to our whole country as a whole.

These Paper General cannot survive beyond SAF. Even when they were posted to the GLCs and private entities, they expected to be in top management positions, even though they have no REAL WORLD Corporate experience whatsoever, and know NUTs about running the companies, worse, the country! However, they have this "Scholar-Entitlement" mindset. They were "helicopter" into such positions and eventually, they would find that they cannot manage such corporate unless they get their own KAKIs from SAF who knows the exact "military style" of management! This is exactly what happened in SMRT and PAP leadership!

I would not mind if these "retired" Paper Generals were willing to start from middle management to learn the corporate way and work their way up but no, they were expected to be able to "plug and play" which is quite ridiculous! It can only happen in Singapore because PAP government has created a web of GLCs to allocate these paper generals nice management positions to stroke their ego of "natural aristocracy"!

Singapore will definitely decline in the coming decades basically because SAF or the civil service is not exactly the best or right place to nurture our talents for running corporations and the country.

And all these, are the wrong doings and mismanagement by PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

Core Values - Our Lack of it (II)

When I was traveling to visit a friend during the Chinese New Year period, someone called out to me, "Are you Goh Meng Seng?" I returned my greetings and thought that this was just another the usual meeting with a Singapore supporter.

But I was proven wrong. This meeting with Michael, proved to be different from others. At the very least, we spent about 20 to 30 minutes chatting on the sidewalk of the busy MRT station.

Michael told me he is an opposition supporter despite the fact that he is a civil servant. The sad thing is that he said he is preparing to migrate out of Singapore to Japan. This is not the first time I met a supporter who will tell me that they are migrating out of Singapore, to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US etc. The last one I met before Michael was Jack at Cantonment Police Station when he was getting his certificate of good conduct from the police so to facilitate his migration!

Naturally, I asked Michael why would he and his family want to migrate to Japan? If all supporters like him were to migrate out, then who do we have left behind to give opposition their continuous support?

Michael explained that he is doing all these for his children. He has been to Japan and was  impressed by their education system. They teach "VALUES" to their students, not just subjects or "living skills" like how to deal with internet and the New Media.

I was stunned by his words. I thought there are no other Singaporeans like me who would talk about "VALUES" or the lack of it in our education system. In fact, from top down, Political Leaders to civil servants and commoners, wrong values were transmitted in various subliminal messaging through the political system and pop culture. One of the reasons why I decided to step into opposition politics was due to my rejection of PAP's vote buying exercise via using ASSET ENHANCEMENT HDB UPGRADING carrots. It is basically telling Singaporeans that your votes and soul could be sold or bought by such pork barrel politicking. I did not want my children to live under such system which cultivate such BAD VALUES. Thus, I decided that either I fight PAP to change this system or I shall resign myself to making more money and prepare myself to leave this place; for the sake of my future generations.

In fact, I have decided to let my daughter to study in Hong Kong instead of Singapore, purely because of my rejection of PAP's indoctrination of BAD values through the education system. The massive brain washing via distorted history books and slanted National Education which mixed PAP's propaganda into various messaging.

I do not see the day I could successfully eradicate the PAP's system of self interests and self preservation. But at least, I tried and am still trying.

And Michael is right, our education system has stopped cultivating our shared common morals and good values with regards to Morals, Equality, Fairness, Humanity, Social Justice, Social Responsibility and Democracy.  Even our National Pledge was treated just as an empty promises of the State and ruling party everyday; rightfully so because PAP has openly declared that this National Pledge is nothing and has no value at all but just a Highfalutin ideals which we should just ignore.

Our education system is more interested in Elitism, to filter out the "bright" Scholars with high IQ, never mind if he or she has any morals or core values to begin with, so that PAP could just put them into civil service and eventually into their party to serve their political monopoly.

Michael told me that many civil servants, high ranking civil servants, are looking into migration out of this place we call Singapore. I was surprised because no matter what, civil servants, especially those high ranking ones, were the ones who helped created the current system! Why are they migrating out of their own creation?

They are just here to work and meet their KPIs which may or may not give the best results that the society needs but definitely serve their own promotions and bonuses. They saw the flaws of the system in many instances but the Top down management would just discourage any dissidence towards the Elite Scholars. Thus, when their time is up, they would just leave Singapore, for the sake of their children.

Michael also told me that the stifling academic environment will not provide the kind of First World education that Singaporeans deserved. He said that he has known various foreign lecturers employed by the local universities had their contracts or tenure shorten or discontinued just because they have made unflattering remarks on local politics, PAP and its policies. The lack of academic freedom would compromise the standards of learning dependent on critical thinking.

Our education system basically discourages critical thinking while promotes conformity or group thinking. This is why Michael felt very pessimistic about the future of his children if they were to remain here in Singapore.

My little conversation with Michael has to end as I was late for my visit. But this little conversation with Michael sets me thinking on the future of Singapore.

Education is the foundation of every Nation and it involves not merely economic importance but also the cultivation of our Nation's Soul. This Soul will determine how our society will look like, how our National Identity will be forged or disintegrate. Any political system's effectiveness will depend on this cultivation of the Nation's Soul, its cultural and social consensus based on the values it holds. But somehow, our Good Core Values are serious lacking while bad influences like political propaganda have been on the rise.

Without the Freedom to Think with strong cultivation of Core Values, there will only be Mind Slaves left in the country.

Goh Meng Seng

NUSS Forum : Elitism, SAP schools and Singapore Inc.

Elitism, SAP schools and Singapore Inc.

SAP schools should be more inclusive. That's one of the points I have made during the NUSS Forum.

This is not really a "NEW POINT" which I have made, just that it was not emphasized in the past. I have made this point way back in GE2011 during my Tampines Election Rally. I have this view since I was 13 years old when I was enrolled into River Valley High, a SAP (Special Assistant Program) school.

When I first walked in to RV, I was quite disturbed because there was no Malay or Indian students. We are a Multi-Racial, Multi-Ethnic country and it is regrettable that I was not able to grow up in a learning environment together with other races.

Such deficiency has negative impact on the overall outlook and perspective of a SAP school student. Luckily for me, I took extra effort to make more Malay friends and try to understand them, their religion and culture. I even took the effort to read part of the English translated Koran back in secondary school.

I always feel that we should make an effort to include Higher Malay and Higher Tamil (last time we termed it as "First Language") in SAP schools so that our fellow Top Malay and Indian students who have done well could have the opportunities to enjoy the same system with excellent resources which provides good education to our Top Chinese students in Singapore.

The lack of Malay and Indian students will deprive these Top Chinese students the lifetime opportunity to mingle around with other ethnic groups and thus, reduced their ability to integrate and understand these ethnic groups better. If these Top Chinese "elites" were to become future leaders in all fields of the society, including politics, then there could be a problem of disconnection with other ethnic groups. This is totally unhealthy.

I raise this point of SAP school when a participant asked about "Elitism" in Singapore. I feel that the main problem is not "Elitism" but rather how we could form a cohesive leadership generations after generations if our SAP schools lack inclusiveness of the other ethnic groups of the society.

Furthermore, with regards to political leadership, the main problem with PAP government is not just about the ruling elites being disconnected from the ground but rather, they run Singapore like a company instead of a country.

There is a vast difference in perspective here. A company only cares about profits and bottom lines (i.e. GDP growth at all cost) and it could just get rid of people who are unproductive. But for a country like Singapore, there will be people who are unproductive for various reasons but could we as a Nation throw them away into the sea? Of course not! We should just stop this nonsense of Singapore Inc.


Goh Meng Seng

Why I CONTINUE TO WHACK MOE...

Despite of numerous pleads from supporters and friends who fear that I might lose votes from those who think it is not appropriate for anyone to discuss about the Mt Kinabalu tragedy or "blame" anyone because it is some "unforeseeable natural disaster", I have persisted in putting the records straight that 12 year old kids are not supposed to be allowed on such "mountain climbing expedition".

Why? You may ask. Am I not afraid of losing votes when my detractors will capitalize on this and paint me as heartlessly politicizing this tragedy?

When I heard about the tragedy of 12 year old students dead from the earthquake while on "mountain climbing expedition", my first reaction is "that is insane to send 12 year old kids to climb mountain!". It is a natural quick reflex reaction from a person who have not only go on quite a number of mountain climbing expedition but who has actually led such expeditions.

When I watch the video of the happy and cheerful victim making her last farewell video before the tragedy happened, I was devastated. She was just like my own 12 year old daughter! Always happy and cheerful whenever she went on some excursions. However, this is no ordinary "excursion" but some crazy ambitious outdoor expedition that was not meant for 12 year old kids!

I felt extremely sad but at the same time, extremely angry with the irresponsible decisions made by those people up there.

I will put it plainly, between risk losing my elections or putting more innocent young kids to risk their lives to some activities that some silly MOE allows to happen, I would rather risk losing my Elections than allowing MOE continue to white wash their responsibility off and carry on putting young lives to take unnecessary risks.

MOE and its Minister are not just brushing off their responsibility by trying to repeat that this is just "natural disaster" and "there is no fatal incident for the past Mt Kinabalu expedition", subtly implying that there is nothing wrong for MOE to approve such activities for 12 year old kids.

Furthermore, Minister Heng Swee Keat's open statement which says that the Mt Kinabalu climb is not "challenging" really made me extremely mad. He must have asked some people from his ministry to do some "research" on Mt Kinabalu climb and the common stance is that it is not "technically challenging" because you do not need to use special mountaineering gear or equipment to climb Mt Kinabalu. However that doesn't mean that such climb is not "risky" at all! Thus such statement from the Minister is totally misleading.

In the bid to wash off their responsibility, MOE and its Minister have unwittingly and stupidly spread the misinformation to Singaporeans who may not understand what mountain climbing is all about. This may lead to more Singaporean kids being sent to take unnecessary high risk to participate in such risky activities! That is why I find it totally necessary to stand up and fight against such propaganda of misinformation else we will be risking more young lives like my daughter!

Most people said to me, "Can you wait until the funeral or grieving period is over?" I wish I could but not with such pervasive propaganda by the Main Stream Media under PAP's control. The poison of such misinformation would have spread too widely, too deeply.

Never mind if people misunderstood me as being "disrespectful" to the dead. No amount of "SHOW of Respect" can resurrect them. The only good thing I can do for the dead is to prevent such misinformation to poison Singaporeans' mind and to save many other young kids from being put to such unnecessary high risk activities to put their lives in danger. I hope the dead students and teachers in this insane expedition can forgive me for being vocal during this period in performing my duty and role.

I will continue to blast MOE and the Minister until they wake up their bloody idea. They have to recognize and admit that sending groups of 12 year old kids to climb Mount Kinabalu is totally wrong in putting them to unnecessary high risk. Else I will continue to drum into their thick skull until they change their policy stance.

I sincerely hope all other Singaporeans who share the same view as me will stand together and press on, by writing and voicing out against such insanity and propaganda of misinformation by PAP. Let us get this straight to PAP, don't mess around with our children's lives!

Risk of Climbing Mount Kinabalu

I have roughly gone through the THREE main risks of climbing Mount Kinabalu and I shall elaborate more here.

1) Wet Weather

On top of any mountain which is 1000m and above, it will always be WET in the morning. Many climbers have stated in their writing that it started to drizzle or rain during the early morning climb to the summit. Actually that may not really be "rain" but just "condensation" during "dew time" whereby the sudden drop in temperature in the atmosphere will result in a condensation of water vapor droplets in the cloud or atmosphere. These will turn into water droplets and drizzle down onto the mountain. This is also the source of water for the many rivers and streams running down from the mountain.

Such condensation will make everything wet on the mountain and couple with the granite rocky path leading towards the peak, this will make the climb extremely slippery. Most of the time the climbers started very early in the morning (2 am) so to catch the sunrise and thus, you just imagine walking uphill along such slippery rocky path in the darkness with sharp rocks everywhere along the climb. Is that risky?

As Kinabalu is situated in tropical region, humidity in the atmosphere is high and thus, you should expect such wet situation every morning without fail.

2) Thinning of Air and Altitude Sickness

At the height of 4095m, the thinning of air and thus reduced oxygen is a real challenge to many people. When your lungs lack oxygen, your heart beats will rise, your brain lacks oxygen, your mind will become lethargic and reactions to situation will be compromised.

Even when you do not suffer from altitude sickness, your body coordination will be compromised. And if you are expected to climb that slippery rocky path, the risk is actually much higher than most people think.

3) For any mountain climbing, the more hidden risk lies in the descending part. This is because after the climb of the summit, there will always be the feel of excitement and joy. On top of that, due to the effect of gravity, people normally thought that the descend should be "easy". However the strain on the knees and ankles is the greatest when you descend and if you are not careful enough, you may just slip and fall down the path. And if the descend is made in the morning, the initial descend will be faced with slippery path.

Most serious injuries to the knees and ankles are suffered during the descend.

These are the basic inherent risks which mountain climbing will have and that is why mountain climbing of certain height will always be considered as medium-high to high risk.

For Kinabalu, despite of what many people say of such "easy climb" or "technically not challenging", it will still be considered as High Risk to me basically because of its height and natural elements. This is especially so for young children of 12 years old

Goh  Meng Seng

Mountain Climbing not for 12 year old kids!

 The Trekking at Mount Kinabalu

First and foremost, my deepest condolences to the families of the students and teacher who died from the Sabah Mount Kinabalu Earthquake. I believe those students and teachers who survived the tragedy must have suffered tremendous trauma and I hope that psychiatrists are sent to provide the necessary counseling to help them overcome their traumatic shocks and pain.

This article does not seek to pin point the fault of earthquake death to anyone. It is true that no matter if you are adult or a child, you are subjected to the same risk to death from such sudden act of nature. However, there is really much to fault MOE and the school for approving or allowing 12 year old kids to go on such "Mountain Climbing Expedition".

The common excuse given was that the Primary School has been conducting this expeditions for the past few years without incidents, so we should assume there is nothing wrong in having such expedition for 12 year old kids. This is absolutely wrong argument to deflect responsibility for both MOE and the school. It is like saying you have won a few rounds from Casino and thus, gambling in Casino is absolutely safe!

The other flawed argument is that when we walk on the street, we also face risk of being injured or killed by car or other accidents. The key thing is, you do not have a choice to face such risk in our daily life but we do have the choice whether to allow our young 12 year old kids to face unnecessary risks for such expedition!

Some people say that we do not want to cultivate kiasu kiasi (timidity and cowardice) people so we should continue to support such expedition for 12 year old kids. This is totally wrong perspective. We should not cultivate the mindset of recklessness in the bid to look for gungho (overly tough) training for our kids! We should cultivate the middle path, to take calculated risks and how to deal with risks.

What is risk? What is Risk assessment and management?

We face risk everyday, with or without knowing it. Some risks we can afford or mitigate it with some training or preparation (like teaching kids how to cross roads, take public transport, take escalator...etc). But there are some risks cannot be mitigated due to age. Eg. Driving for 12 year old.

Age may be a multiplier for risk factor. Eg. asking an 80 year old man or 12 year old kid to climb mountain as compared to 20 year old man. Why 12 year old kid is unsuitable for mountain climbing in general?

I have been active in outdoor adventurous activities in my younger days and I have brought a number of groups of students of age 17 to 18 to climb mountains. As trainer, instructor and leader of such expedition is always taxing because you know that you are responsible for more than 10 young lives. Their parents have entrusted you their lives and expect you to deliver them back, safe and stronger.

Ironically, as an adventurer, we have to be extremely paranoid when it comes to planning and putting up safety measures and contingencies. First criteria for a safe and meaningful expedition, is to have only suitable participants for the trip. They must not only be physically and medically fit, but also mentally prepared for all sorts of emergencies. As the leader of the expedition, we have to believe in Murphy's Law, what can go wrong, will go wrong.

Participants for mountain climbing expedition must also be able to take care of themselves as well as others, in times of need. They must be able to conduct first aid, search and rescue mission plus evacuation on their own. They must learn jungle survival if they are lost or stuck in the jungle for whatever reasons. Instructors and leader of the expedition are also human and unfortunate things may also happen to us; be it injury, comma, death or otherwise. The participants are expected to have the ability to save our lives as well!

On top of strenuous physical training, there are a whole list of skills for participants to learn (rope skills, jungle survival, first aid, evacuation drill, map reading, contingency drills etc etc) and those instructors are expected to know their stuffs as well. They are not just some "lobo" nannies but expected to be proficient in the various skills as well.

Thus I was surprised that 12 year old kids were allowed to take part in mountain climbing expedition to Mount Kinabalu! They would have failed the basic fundamental risk assessment of being unsuitable participants. They do not have the necessary physical and mental build to deal with any emergencies, least making evacuation plan.

There are a list of outdoor activities with different risk levels and for 12 year old kids, they should not be involved in high risk or even medium risk outdoor activities. Risk level for outdoor activities depend on quite a number of factors which include, but not limited to, the following:

1) Place of conduct. Is it under controlled environment with easy access to main evacuation routes? Isit deep in the forest, high up the mountain?

2) Terrain. Is the terrain easy or tough? Water? Height? Rocky? Thick forestation? Generally speaking, terrain with water is considered medium to high risk. A 12 year old kid may know how to swim well in a controlled environment like swimming pool but the risk factor will definitely be extremely higher when it comes to sea, with uncontrollable natural forces like under current. Physical strength will be vital for survival if the undercurrent is strong. Thus, age plays a very important role in risk assessment. Similarly, for steep mountain climbing, age will matter a lot because unlike simple flat terrain trekking, going up and down the ridges add risk of falling to death or injury. Most 12 year old kids have not developed their body fully and the risk of falling off the trail gets higher.

It may look deceivingly easy and safe, but it is not.

3) Weather. Adverse weather has different impact on people of different ages. Young kids are more prone to slip and fall during wet weather.

4) Preparedness. Are participants well trained and prepared for the activity? Are the instructors well trained to deal with emergencies and contingencies?

I do not object the idea of cultivating our young ones with outdoor activities. However, we must also select the appropriate activities for such cultivation, in accordance to the participants' physical and mental capabilities and development

Even for my Ventures and Rovers scout troop which consisted of 17 to 18 years old JC students, we start right from the basics instead of jumping right into relatively higher risk mountain climbing expedition. A progressive training process is planned, right from simple camp craft learning, rope skills, map reading, jungle survival, first aid, simple leisure camp, annual training camp, then towards training for mountain expedition...etc. This process may take up 9 months.

For the instructors, we will have to do recce of the site, meaning, we have to conduct our own climb along the route a few weeks before the actual climb. This was done no matter how familiar we were with the mountain because terrain may change drastically over short period of time.

So if anyone tell me these 12 year old kids are suitable to climb Mount Kinabalu because they have gone through some 3 months of physical training, I say you must be either kidding or insane.


This is what Mountain Climbing at Mt Kinabalu is all about

In my view, these 12 year old kids have neither the required physical and mental build, nor the necessary training to go for this mountain climbing expedition. They are only suitable for the low risk camping activity in controlled environment aka, a designated campsite.

If the idea is about "leadership training", there is no necessity to go for a mountain climbing expedition. In fact, mountain climbing does not provide much "leadership training" as compared to a properly conducted training camp in a designated campsite. It is through such training camp, with a higher level of difficulty, that we select the new generation of leaders to lead our scout troop. We do not identify or choose the new leaders through the mountain climbing expedition.

The list of outdoor activities with different degree of risk levels are as follows:

Low Risk

Camping in school compound
Camping at designated campsites on Singapore mainland
Trekking along flat and less dense forested terrain, near to road access 

Intermediate risk

Camping at campsites off Singapore mainland (outlying islands)
Camping on small hills
Trekking along slightly dense forested terrain with uphills and downhills., away from road access.

 Medium Risk

Canoeing at reservoirs
Swimming in lagoons with safety net
Camping overseas
Trekking along dense forested terrain deep in the forest
Mountain climbing of less than 500m in height take less than 2 days 1 night

Medium High Risk

Canoeing along the Coast of small islands take less than half a day 
Swimming in pools with waterfalls or rocky features
Mountain Climbing of less than 1500m not more than 3 days 2 nights

High Risk

Mountain climbing of height above 1500m taking more than 3 days 2 nights
Swimming in open sea with high waves

The dangerous Ferrata (see here about Ferrata routes) climb which the students are said to be climbing. The simplest Ferrata route includes the following:

1. Walk the Torque

This is a shorter and simpler version of the ferrata and can be completed leisurely within 2-3 hours. Length of route is only 430m. You’ll still get a taste of the ferrata and get to try out a few obstacles such as the  2 cable Monkey bridge,  Tyrolean traverse &  Balancing beam (you’ll get to do all these in the low’s peak circuit too!)

The number of days you spent in the wild will also increase your risk exponentially, mainly due to fatigue which will result in loss of focus and concentration power of the mind. Age will also matter. For example, if you put a 12 year old kid to enroll in activity which may be medium risk, the nature of risk may just shoot up to become HIGH RISK instead. Thus it is only wise for planners to choose their activities carefully in accordance to the age of participants.

I do not think 12 year old kids are ready for any activity which is in the category of medium risk or above as we need to take into consideration that due to their age, the risk factor may just increase exponentially. In my view, they are only suitable for intermediate risk and below, which may be considered as medium to medium high risk to them already.

Thus you see that to allow 12 year old kids to go for Mount Kinabalu climb is to put them on extremely high risk outdoor activity. Is it prudent for MOE to approve such activity for Primary school kids?

I seriously wonder how MOE do their risk assessment. Are they totally ignorant of the multiplying effect of risk due to young age for such outdoor activities? Are they totally ignorant of the risk involved in mountain climbing? Height and gravity can kill! Not to mention rocky mountains!  Are MOE so naive to believe fully on commercial information of tour agencies without doing their own due diligence by engaging independent expert knowledge or assessment? Are MOE so silly to believe that 12 year old kids are fit to climb mountain when SAF only enlist males for National Service at 16?

MOE has the greatest responsibility as the gate keeper of safety for any excursions conducted by schools, especially Primary Schools. It owes its responsibility to the parents who entrusted them the lives of their children. It is ironic that as an education ministry,  it doesn't understand the limitation of age and the need of progressive cultivation at all. Allowing students with unsuitable age to engage in high risk mountain climbing activity without any progressive training is totally irresponsible and unacceptable. That is totally insane.

Risk management is to mitigate or reduce risk. Even my 12 year old daughter understands that. But to send 12 year old kids to high risk mountain climbing expedition is not reducing risk but instead, increasing their risks to unacceptable level!

I hope MOE should stop all these nonsense immediately. I would grudgingly agree to let students of 16 years old to engage in intermediate mountain climbing (I started my first mountain climbing at 16 as well) but for any age below that, it is definitely a big no. Even for that age, a progressive training program should be put in place to prepare students for the climb.

For those who keep defending MOE or the school for such insanity, think twice before you do say anything silly. Would you dare to try it out yourself or send your 12 year old kids for Mount Kinablalu climb again? If yes, good luck to you. You will really need that.

Goh Meng Seng

PM Lee is a TOTAL Failure

A month or two prior to this National Day Rally (NDR) speech of PM Lee, there was much hype about it with rumours that "Major announcement" and Major changes will be made during his speech. But in the end, it is a total let down. Apparently, PM Lee has totally lost touch of the ground and didn't really know nor understand what is expected from him and his government by the people.

The THEME of this year's NDR is supposedly to be "Honouring Pioneer Generation" and retirement financing is inevitably the hottest topic in town after the numerous CPF protests held in Hong Lim Park earlier this year, along with PM Lee suing a blogger Roy Ngern over his CPF articles. A lot of CPF issues have been brought to light and public discourse has been ongoing but PM Lee has just done a cosmetic surgery on the whole lot of issues without addressing the REAL PROBLEMS of the inadequacy of CPF for retirement financing.

Is Singapore our HOME for our Retirement?

I have the opportunities to talk to two "Foreign Talents" with regards to their choice of place for retirement. They are regarded as the "upper middle class" people with very high earnings. One of them is Director M, who is a Regional Director of a MNC, Malaysian citizen. The other is Professor D, a lecturer and head of department from a university, Hong Konger.

Both of them are in their late forties or early fifties. Both of them were having a dilemma of whether they should get Singapore citizenship and retire in Singapore. They were discussing this with me a couple of years ago but this year, it seems that BOTH have concluded that they would rather retire in their respective country or city of birth. i.e. Malaysia and Hong Kong.

Both of them do not know each other but somehow, they have come to the same conclusion that it is best for them to retire in their respective home base. Director M has been a Singapore PR for decades but after learning about the horrendous HIGH COST of healthcare services in Singapore as compared to Malaysia, he has finally decided that it is totally not worth retiring in Singapore after all.

He has a relative who was on treatment for cancer in Malaysia and he only paid Malaysian Ringgit $50 for each jab of chemotherapy! Imagine how much it will cost in Singapore? Furthermore, cost of living in Malaysia is relatively much lower than Singapore! Thus, he has decided that, despite the fact that he is pretty wealthy, he still prefers to go back to Malaysia to retire and live like a King!

Similarly for Professor D. He felt that Hong Kong has excellent healthcare system which is TRULY affordable, unlike Singapore. He said that cost of living in Singapore is really on par if not higher than Hong Kong. There is no reason for him to migrate to Singapore to suffer HIGHER medical cost since it is expected that for an aging person like him, he would have needed more healthcare for the rest of his life.

It is truly enlightening to see that BOTH people from the "Third World" and "First World" places like Malaysia and Hong Kong are shunning Singapore for "retirement". But as Singaporeans, do we have a choice at all? We are born in Singapore and we have little choice but live, retire and die in Singapore. However, under PAP rule, we are going to suffer, after decades of contributing to Singapore's development, we will die poor, having to be forced to sell off our HDB flat for our retirement.

I guess the ultimate aim of PAP has been leaked before, they wanted us to retire in JB (Johor Bahru)!

Who is responsible for CPF's inadequacy?

No matter how much PAP is going to raise the Minimum Sum for CPF, the fact still remains, despite of a high CPF contribution rate over the decades, at least 70% of Singaporeans are not going to have enough money in CPF to meet their retirement needs. Why so?

There are three key reasons why CPF has failed for its primary purpose of retirement financing.

First of all, PAP has deliberately reduced the interest returns for CPF since 1990s to a marginal amount of 2.5% to 4%.

The Second reason is that PAP has increased HDB flat prices since 1980s and it went into full steam of escalating the prices in 1990s in the name of "Asset Enhancement Scheme". This is a plot to siphon off Singaporeans' money from CPF to Main Reserves through "Land Sales" or higher "Land Pricing" for HDB flats. Of course the "Market Subsidy Pricing" logic has helped PAP to escalate the HDB prices for this purpose.

Whatever is left in your CPF is "partitioned off" for Medisave. For this money, you will never see it unless you use it to cover the ever increasing medical cost or until the day you die. Else, it will stay in the Main Reserves and kept in GIC or Temasek Holdings for their investment. Make no mistake about it, no matter how PAP tries to side track or hide the fact, the truth is, part of the funds Temasek Holdings is investing comes from our CPF monies. The high healthcare cost, hospitalization cost accompanied by long waiting time for hospital beds will negate whatever money you have in your Medisave.

It is a kind of irony that PAP tries to make you feel good with "Asset Enhancement Scheme" in order to make you pay extraordinary high prices for a PUBLIC HOUSING flat which you do not really own in essence but in the end, turn around and corner you, forcing you when you are old to sell off your flat for your own retirement needs!

PAP is the MAIN Culprit in creating the situation of inadequate CPF for your retirement financing via their flawed policies in public housing, healthcare and investment returns from our sovereign funds. But in the end, instead of addressing these issues effectively, they turn around and say the best they can do is to help you to sell your HDB flat.

Well, imagine this, first they make you pay high price for your HDB flat and then they will force you to sell your flat cheap back to them for retirement. Or force you to downgrade to some overpriced studio apartment with a limited lease when you do not have enough money for retirement.

When you are old and don't have enough cash for retirement or to pay your medical fees and you think you can approach them for help, the first thing they will tell you and aim for, is to ask you to sell off your HDB flat! Never mind if you have some fond memories attached to your home but you have to sell off your HDB flat and no, they won't provide another cheap rental flat for you to live after you sell your HDB flat.

They will ask you to pay hefty and horrendous prices again, for a small studio apartment which will have only a 30 years lease. This will technically make the value of this studio apartment unattractive because no bank will make any mortgage loan to anyone to buy a property with only 20 or 30 years lease! There is absolutely no value for inheritance by your children even though you have paid a gross $70K or $80K for such studio apartment.

Yes, they will continue to squeeze every bits from you even when you are old, retired and without a job and this is done with such a beautiful name of wanting to help you with your retirement!

They have made up a beautiful empty dream of "Asset Enhancement" to make believe that you will be rich by paying horrendous prices for your HDB flats which technically, you don't really own it. You can't even re-mortgage it if you need to when you are short of cash for anything, least, retirement. So what this talk about "Asset Enhancement" when eventually, you will be forced to sell off every assets you have? Worse still, they pray on your greed but eventually your children and grandchildren will eventually be the ones who will suffer under high HDB prices!

Inadequate Hospital Care with Squeeze You further

My mother has suffered during one of the hospitalization saga. Due to over-population and shortage of infrastructures, there will be but a total lack of C class beds which "promised" a "market subsidy" price to Singaporeans. Imagine when you are so uncomfortably in pain but you are asked to wait more than 36 hours or even 48 hours for a proper bed in the ward, UNLESS you upgrade yourself to those "less subsidize" B1 or A class wards!

Avoiding to Solve the REAL Problems

If you look at the WHOLE picture closely, it is not difficult for you to realize that the main problem lies with the Sovereign Funds, aka GIC and Temasek Holdings. They are just like a HUGE MONEY VACUUM CLEANERS, sucking lots of money into it but not giving the appropriate returns to our CPF.

When PAP raise the HDB prices, it basically justify it by the "market pricing" of the land which your flats are built on. But bear in mind that most of these land are acquired at dirt cheap prices from our forefathers. All Land Sales proceeds via SLA will go into the Main reserves and thus our sovereign funds, GIC and Temasek. At the same time, our CPF monies are transferred to these two entities via the special Singapore government bonds as well, which give a pitiful returns to our people.

The only difference is that funds that acquired from selling HDB flats to Singaporeans will bear no "burden" on these Sovereign Funds to provide returns while the CPF monies via SSGB will require them to produce return. Thus, right from 1990s, they have capped the returns to our CPF monies while increased new HDB prices. It basically means that they are reducing their obligations of providing adequate returns to our CPF as a whole. They have systematically tweak the system and fooling us into believing they are doing good to us via "Asset Enhancement Scheme" and quietly reducing returns on our CPF.

For some strange reasons, it seems that this is just not enough for them. They have also systematically dragged on the period for these Sovereign Funds to give us back our CPF monies. First, Medisave has been created and whatever money you have in this account, you won't be able to see them in broad daylight till the day you die but only be "transferred" as digits into the big black hole of high medical cost you will face in life.

I believe they will try to make it a law that whatever inheritance your children will get from your CPF, including your Medisave, will be transferred to your children CPF accounts in the near future! They have already tried to tweak the system by introducing such similar mechanism into the CPF nomination scheme as "option" but I believe they will make it "opt-out" instead for those who didn't make clear of their intentions. It just reminds me of the HOTA legislation whereby an initial "volunteer option" of organ donation has become the default choice unless you opt out.

It seems to me that they are doing everything they can to feed these monsters (GIC and Temasek) with money and trying their very best to delay any payment and thus, cash outflow from these monsters.

I do not know why they are trying everything to keep the cash in these two Sovereign Funds but apparently if this is what they are striving for, there is no reason for them to solve the three problems of Inadequate CPF for retirement financing.

1) Low CPF returns
2) High HDB price
3) High Medical Cost

What needs to be done is simply:

1) Raise the CPF returns or liberalize the system to allow Singaporeans to invest their own funds in appropriate trust funds or even directly into Temasek and GIC! To get this work effectively, basic financial management skills should be taught in our schools. If most Singaporeans are to be proficient in managing their own funds, I do not see why we should just settle for that miserable 2.5% from CPF. They could even withdraw their CPF at age 55 and manage their own funds for their own retirement if they can prove their proficiency in financial management!

2) Change the HDB pricing mechanism to Cost-plus pricing system for New Flats. This will reduce BTO prices with minimum impact on resale market.

3) Public Hospitals should remain as Public, instead of thinking making money via Medical Tourism. There should only be one class of beds with REAL subsidies to citizens. A fair Universal Healthcare Insurance should be put in place.

There are many other things that need to be looked into. eg. The CPF Life Annuity system is really a joke. I do not know whether it is just another scheme for PAP to make money or what but the payout is definitely "profit-bias". This has been explained by many other bloggers in Singapore.

Nevertheless, to solve the inadequacy problem of CPF, PAP will have to look hard at these three fundamentals first. 

Conclusion

This is where PM Lee has failed badly. He thought he could hoodwink us with such small cosmetic surgery by allowing us to request (approval is not guaranteed!!!) to withdraw part of our CPF money at 65 years old and putting up some measures for us to reverse-mortgage or sell off our flats to solve the problems created by them, in terms of inadequate CPF for retirement financing. What PM Lee should do is to address these fundamental problems that are creating a huge gap in the adequacy of our CPF which is meant for our retirement financing. It is totally a joke for a country which has a mandatory contribution rate of 36% of our gross salary but in the end, we ended up with insufficient funds to finance our retirement and most of us will be forced to sell our flats for retirement!

But I guess Singaporeans are not that stupid at all. The fundamental question we want to ask is that, will PAP take up the responsibility of providing for those who can't have enough money for their retirement? This is especially a REAL problem for many Singaporeans because apart from the above 3 main problems created by PAP, its ultra-liberal FT policy has basically depressed Singaporeans' wages over these two decades and worse of all, displaced quite a number of Singaporeans from their proper jobs. Many professionals or PMETs were forced out by cheaper Foreign labour and have no choice, to become Taxi Drivers! This will add to the difficulties for these Singaporeans to have enough savings in their CPF to cater to their retirement needs.

All in all, I have basically lost confidence in PAP's manipulation of the whole system and this is why, I do not trust them at all. Not with my CPF money. Their past and present tweaking of the CPF, HDB and Healthcare systems, on top of it, the ultra-liberal FT policy, have basically made me skeptical about their real intentions.

My gut feeling is that there is a bigger problem in this whole system which is totally opaque to us. The only way to find out is to kick PAP out of power first.

Goh Meng Seng

NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011

NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011

The National Solidarity Party is very disappointed that the PAP government has not addressed in this budget the fundamental question on whether the current economic growth model of “Growth at all cost” based on indiscriminate importation of foreign workers at ALL LEVELS of employment should carry on. Instead, it tries to address the “ill symptoms”, which are caused by this flawed economic strategy, in such an inadequate way.

While the excuse of low fertility rate is cited as the main reason to import excessive foreign workers into Singapore, the miserable $300 to $400 Child Development Credit is totally inadequate to address this problem. We would expect healthcare cost to be lowered or a comprehensive social safety net for children up to 18 years old or heavy subsidy for pre-school education etc. The little top ups to students’ Edusave by $130 could hardly offset the enormous increase in tuition fees over the years. Apparently there are not enough subsidies given to tertiary institutions to defray the rising costs. On the other hand, there are no new initiatives to strengthen work-life balance for couples so that they could enjoy family life with their children.

The only “real” solution to the low fertility rate provided by PAP government is to depend on the influx of foreign workers. Although PAP has increased worker levies but it falls short of giving us the assurance that the number of foreign workers, thus population, will not grow any further.

The first critical problem of having excessive foreign workers is, either citizens' jobs are displaced or wages are suppressed by them. PAP has chosen to increase workers levies while giving more workfare to citizens to address these problems. However, we believe that without a minimum wage scheme, the effectiveness of both the workfare and worker levies will be dampened (due to substitution effects).

The influx of cheap foreign labour has apparently suppressed wages and thus widened the income disparity. According to the chart shown in the budget speech as well as what the Finance Minister has said, the real income growth of the 20th percentile in the past decade would only be 5% instead of 8.1% if it was not for the workfare. The income disparity has widened when the real income growth for the 50th percentile is 20.7%!

There is no doubt that workfare has managed to close the gap of the widening trend just a bit but the most important question we have to ask: is this economic model sustainable in the long run? Can the PAP government guarantee that it will keep giving out more and more workfare in the years to come in a bid to cushion the impact of the widening of income gap?

We are very doubtful about the Finance Minister’s assertion that the real income of all our workers could grow by 30% for the next decade. While we are only able to raise the income of the 20th and 50th percentile by 8.1% and 20.7% in real terms respectively with a corresponding average growth of 4%-6% in GDP for the last decade, how can we possibly achieve a higher growth of 30% in real terms for ALL Singaporeans when our Finance Minister only expects our economy to grow at a slower pace of 3% to 5% for the next decade? We believe that only the million-dollar salaried ministers will enjoy more than 30% increase in real terms in the coming decade!

In the mad pursuit of more foreign workers, the PAP government has taken the lead to cultivate the mindset that only foreigners are “talents” while Singaporeans are not. The government should not put too much emphasis on foreigners as talents. Our homegrown MNCs should emphasise more on grooming our Singaporean PMETs instead of replacing them with “foreign talents”.

We do not think that the effort to raise productivity would bear fruits in raising our citizens' wages as long as PAP continues to let the whole world supply us with cheaper and younger foreign labour indiscriminately. The economic growth model needs a major overhaul. Comprehensive plans should be put in place to groom local SMEs as well as local talents with global view.

The sudden rapid increase in foreign workers has also caused a whole range of other problems, from rising inflation to inadequate public transport and healthcare infrastructure as well as high housing cost. However the PAP government has not effectively addressed all these issues at all.

The Minister says he wants to help Singaporeans to fight inflation but yet he has conveniently avoided mentioning anything about GST. Either GST should be reduced or at least stay permanent at 7%, but there is no commitment from PAP at all.

In spite of a shortage of hospital beds, the budget for Ministry of Health has been reduced for 2011 resulting from a cut in “development expenditure”. We are surprised that the government has cut healthcare funding but increased the defence budget by a substantial 5.4% instead.

On the property front, we believe that the key issue of high HDB price lies with the pricing policy of new HDB flats. NSP advocates cost-plus pricing for new HDB flats. Giving more grants to low-income buyers will not solve the burden of 30-year mortgage tagged on these flat purchases.

In conclusion, NSP would want to make an open call to the PAP government to set its priorities right. The PAP should not merely focus on giving away goodies to voters in this election year. but focus on the long-term structural problems of our economy. As long as the ruling party refuses to realign its economic growth model for the coming decade, we will forever face the critical problems raised above.

A responsible government should take the welfare of our citizens at heart in longer terms instead of engrossing itself in populist policies which may temporarily alleviate unhappiness on the ground but are totally unhelpful in solving our longer term structural problems.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Afternote: I have some feedback, including from my wife, that some of the technical things are difficult to understand. Especially the part in bold.

The logic is this, the Finance Minister Tharman claims that in order to continue to have real income growth, we need GDP to grow continuously. But the question is, by this logic, how could we have HIGHER REAL INCOME growth with LOWER GDP growth? He was talking about 30% REAL INCOME GROWTH FOR EVERYONE! But, in spite of the fact that we had HIGHER average GDP growth in the last decade of 4%-6%, the real income growth for BOTH 20 percentile and 50 percentile is far lesser than 30%. He then projected that we will have LOWER GDP growth for the next decade at 3% to 5% but expect REAL INCOME growth to be HIGHER! On top of that, with the present economic growth model the real income growth is going to be unequal and income disparity will widen. It is really impossible to have EQUAL real income growth for everybody. It is really an amazing contradiction or simply MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

A Tribute to a National Icon - Dr. Goh Keng Swee

I received news about the passing of Dr. Goh Keng Swee this morning while in Hong Kong. I am very much saddened by this news.

Later in the evening, a ST reporter requested a response from me, on behalf of my party. This is what I said to him:

Our nation has lost a great man who has contributed tremendously to our nation building. Although we do not agree totally to some of his past policies but his spirit of socialism and public service are the source of inspiration to many of us. In mourning his death and the lost of our national icon, we would like to remind PAP of their humble democratic socialist root which was fully manifested by the late Dr. Goh Keng Swee. The PAP should reflect upon their great deviation from the socialist foundation which was upheld by Dr. Goh Keng Swee. Last but not least, our deepest condolences to the family of Dr. Goh Keng Swee.

A special Tribute to Dr Goh Keng Swee for raising Singapore up from a poor country to one with strong economic foundation.


I have not met Dr. Goh Keng Swee personally. My first impression of him came from my late father. Although my father was a skeptic of PAP rule, he had shown much respect to Dr. Goh Keng Swee, acknowledging him as the few, if not the only one, who was sincere and always had the interests of the people at heart.

I got to know Dr. Goh Keng Swee better after I became a student of Economics in NUS. I went through pages and pages of those White Papers that he wrote during his tour of duty in many ministerial portfolios. A true blue Socialist at heart and a Visionary in his era. In 1960s when many countries were caught up with protectionism due to the rise of nationalism in the post-colonialism era, he pushed for Free Trade Port and invited foreign investments onto our shores.

From the description of many others who have worked with him, he was someone who would always be very careful of spending every cent of taxpayers' money. He was also someone who would think of ways to lower cost for the benefits of Singaporeans at large.

Although I did not agree with some of his policies, especially streaming and elitist grooming (Gifted) program in education but I have a lot of admiration and respect for Dr. Goh Keng Swee. He has left a legacy which is hard to be matched by anyone in modern history. He has set a high standard for people who are in Public Service, be it civil servants, ministers, politicians or otherwise.

I am inspired by his socialist idealism and pragmatism which are embedded in many of his policies. It is rather sad to see how the contemporary PAP has forsaken much of the solid ideological foundation upon which our nation was created. It was only after the fading away of Dr. Goh Keng Swee from local politics that we started to hear people cynically relating PAP to Pay And Pay. From HDB, COE, Healthcare to Education, we have lost every bit of socialism in them. Cost recovery and even profit making have become the main policy direction for almost all ministries.

While Singaporeans mourn the death of a great man in this Nation, I hope that everyone of us, including PAP members, should reflect upon the stray path that we have been put on since the stepping down of Dr. Goh Keng Swee.

It is very unfortunate that I won't be back in time to pay my last respect to Dr. Goh. May he Rest In Peace.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: I will be able to pay my last respect to Dr. Goh after all on 20 May.

漫谈双文化-作者:冀居·谢

漫谈双文化
作者:冀居·谢
2010.01.06


近日有些网络英文论坛为了标榜服务“全新加坡人”，而在文章的选择方面加入了少量的华文评论，却引起一些网友的反弹，认为看了很‘苟猥’，有者还认为降低了该坛的评论水平。是的，单语舒适应该是人类的共通惰性，特别是年纪越大，越钟意和怀念乡音。另一方面，如果以1980年完全消灭华校为分水岭，而又假设行动党的双文化见解和政策是正确作为前提，至今教育了二至三代的双语/双文化人，能够优游涵泳于两个世界，然而对于语文的敏感度却似乎有增无减，这本身就是一个奇怪的现象。

林瑞生说宁愿两科都五十分也不要做个单科状元；甘愿做双栖的小青蛙，也不要成为单方面的陆地跑步或水上游泳的冠军。既然执政党的愿望那样炙热，为何会生出一个独尊英语的社会，是哪个环节出了错误，还是一开始就有人不断地说谎？

维斯瓦在国会发言，发现执政党越是声嘶力竭地高喊融合，各种族各语言的隔阂越深。他举的一个例子，我小时候也很有印象，就是第八波道是分时段为华族和淡米尔族服务的，所以我跟祖母一小一老常在华语节目结束后接下去看淡米尔片，老实说我对淡米尔片歌舞场面的喜爱，远在美国人发现Bollywood之前。

现在很多商家和政府机构把文字内容呈现给各族大众夸大成十足的难题，或者干脆自行选择只用英文呈现，其实就是一种鸵鸟心态。我记得马来西亚的漫画家Lat就把小时候看露天电影的记忆画出来，布做的天幕上有一半的画面是被华、巫、英的字幕所遮盖，不过大家还是看得津津有味。因为大家都知道，要维持多元文化，让所有人都能一起欣赏，这样的一点让步是必要的。

也不知道什么时候，华文和 “offbeat”划上等号，认为华文呈现的东西都是逊一点的。看到西片有中文字幕，觉得很offbeat，可是当银幕上的人物讲德语或者法语，他们又眼巴巴希望赶快有英文字幕的辅助。他们说英文是世界主流，娱乐主要来自英语产品，可是他们有没有想想电子科技产品的龙头是日本和南韩，电脑游戏方面中国也渐渐赶上，这一二十年来就有很多新玩意儿是先有日文版、韩文版，将来可能有更多是先有中文版，然后才翻译成英文给那些懂得英语的人使用，他们有因为这样而看不起使用英语的人吗？我想不会。

新加坡的年轻人很多都喜欢自诩是双语，但是第五波道的很多外地节目只听得懂一半，有时就转向本地制作的第八波道，因为只有第八波道的华语水平适合他们；所以第八波道就成了为老一辈识字不多、还有识华文字不多的新一代服务。他们看不懂两岸三地的节目，因为华文太“深”！比如昨晚我看韩剧《李算》，有一句“席蒿待罪”，“蒿”是粗糙的织席材料，念hāo。但是字幕却打成“席藳待罪”，配音员也跟着念错，念成gǎo。

新加坡台面上的人物，能够应用双语发表演说和写文章，达到舒适程度且信手拈来的，我看只有一个吴明盛，竟然还是个反对党人物，对于推动双文化的执政党和二丑们，这是多么大的讽刺！四五百万人才出一个，这需要多高的智商，俨然是挟泰山而超北海的不能事，大家别傻了。

有人说不用中文发表的原因是因为打字太麻烦，真的吗？撇开“单指神功”不谈，英文打字要学会用十指来打，也一样要下苦工的。我记得中学的时候还乘着假期花钱到加东购物中心学了十多课才学会的，那时隔壁的奥迪安戏院还在放映《唐山大兄》。

很多人对于眼前事物的理解是不问原由的，比如为什么新加坡的老年人有一部分不能够使用电脑，那一部分就是使用华文华语的人，是这些人比较笨吗？其实不然。根本就是人为障碍的问题，视窗中文版在两岸三地随便都可以买到，但是在本地却完全没有人引进，还能够说我们是提倡双文化的社会吗？只要电脑界面的文字是认识、会看的，其实已经成功了一半，接下来就是熟悉和重复练习的问题罢了。把视窗只能呈现一种英文视为理所当然，才是耽误和剥夺了很多老人上网的机会。就以火狐（Firefox）这个浏览器来说，可以有70多种文字的呈现，中文还分简体和繁体两种，并且每个月都在增加。而我们还执拗于先去spur学会英文才能掌握电脑这个工具，到底是谁先入为主的观念让我们这样笨下去的？

有人说懂得英文，世界所有政要的名字都能够一目了然，而不必像中文那样，一地有一地的翻译。他这样说的时候，大概心中只有欧美，或者更准确地说是雅利安语系的 christian names 吧，亚洲、非洲的名字一样也是不了啊， “Ai Iijima”还不如“饭岛爱”更为人所知。

在亚洲，虽然日本、南韩、台湾和大陆的英文程度都不如新加坡，但是人家对于好莱坞电影的欣赏比我们层面更广、更投入，吸收得更多。世界要多元化，不同的文化可以通过翻译来交流，单语化是愚蠢的结论。而翻译也是社会分工的一部分，吾生也有涯，并不一定要自己来。那些认为自己懂得英文可以直接欣赏英文戏剧的人，为什么在欣赏自己的母族文化时，却要靠英文字幕，这一点你们想过没有？

成语“求全责备”好像很义正词严，其实其近义词却是“吹毛求疵”，这些人用很狭隘的视角，常在门缝里把人看扁了。

星洲选读：林明华—李光耀和南大

主题:星洲选读：林明华—李光耀和南大
作者:冀居·谢 10:12am 04/01/2010

林明华—李光耀和南大
2010-01-03 18:14

事实证明，李光耀至今仍对华教和南大充满了偏见。

新加坡內阁资政李光耀早前接受《国家地理》杂誌访问时表示，他后悔没有早点关闭南洋大学，而决定关闭主要是因为当时的华文大学流失优秀生，只能招收次等生。

李光耀的表白，令许多因为李光耀晚年的一些“后悔”之言，而对他產生“南大有复办希望”幻想的南大子弟，再次彻底绝望。

李光耀曾经说过，“如果时光能够倒流，就不会关闭华校”。他也曾表示，“如果（新加坡）失去南大精神，就会很麻烦”。很多人將他这两句“名言”解读为“后悔之言”，以为他的心態改变了，並因而对他有了浪漫的期待。

然而事实证明，李光耀至今仍对华教和南大充满了偏见，这种心態，数十年如一日，从来就没有真正改变过。

正如他在访谈中所坦承，他是一个“实用主义者”，他没有早点关闭南大，主要是考虑到当时的政治因素，担心在接下来的大选中会引起选民的强烈抗议。

回溯歷史，命途多舛的南洋大学是在陈六使领导下，由马新华社在1956年正式创办。1980 年，李光耀把南洋大学和新加坡大学合併成新加坡国立大学，南大由此走入了歷史。1981年，李光耀在南大的旧校园创办南洋理工学院，並於1991年將之升格为南洋理工大学（简称南大），引发了“南大”是否还实质存在的爭议。

在南大人看来，云南园的相思树已被砍尽，南大也早已和华文小学和华文中学一样，成为新加坡的歷史名词。这是他们心中永远的痛。

但李光耀从来就不曾后悔过，为了合理化他那至今仍然爭议不休的的教育政策，他对南大生和华校生的批评和矮化，依然是那么不留情面，尖酸刻薄。

其实，华文教育在新加坡的没落，究其原因，是既复杂和多方面的，並非李光耀所说的那么简单。其中，政府的英文至上和刻意矮化华校生的政策、李光耀的反共立场，以及他与左翼华文知识份子之间的恩怨，都是促使它写上“休止符”的直接因素。

毫无疑问，新加坡今日的经济成就非凡，但这一切的背后，除了李光耀的“实用主义”发挥了效用之外，难道就一点也没有华校生和南大人的贡献在內？

徙南大於1980被迫关闭，到1987年新加坡华校全部走入歷史，这些歷史大事，都是发生在李光耀担任总理任內。

这个事实，以及李光耀在新加坡华教史上的“歷史定位”，不是滔滔善辩就可以改变的！

星洲日报／云淡风轻‧作者：林明华‧2010.01.03


大马论坛

Education Hub of Degree Mill?

Recently there are a few ADVERSE reports on Singapore's "Education Hub". First of all, two private schools own by a man were suing NTUC Income and CASE for withdrawing their accredited status which made them lose money.

Then there were two foreign reports which are very adverse on Singapore's Education Hub. The first one is from Malaysian Insider. According to the report, Singapore has been "black listed" by Oregon’s Office of Degree Authorisation (ODA) as "degree mill" which chunks out unaccredited degrees.

This is a serious matter as it affect our international standing. Imagine if you are applying for a job in America and even when you have a NUS or NTU degree but Americans have such a bad impression of Singapore as a "degree mill", you may just lose that opportunity right away just by the virtue of perception of your prospective employer.

The other report is even more damaging to the "Singapore Brand". The report is actually a TV program being broadcast in China CCTV.

Singaporeans are generally regarded as trustworthy by the Chinese because Singapore is known to be a place that follows strict rules. The so call "Singapore Brand" is simply based on our trustworthiness in having upright people who seldom break the rules or the law of the land.

However, this documentary portray Singapore as a land of the cheat, with Education institutions cheating on the students in providing unaccredited paper qualifications that aren't even recognized by the Singapore system at all.

To me, this is a big scandal. What happen to our good Singapore brand name? Has it been totally tarnished by the overly aggressive move of PAP wanting to make Singapore an Education Hub? Or just any HUB that they are so obsessed with?

I guess the whole system under PAP is behaving in a cult manner. Whenever someone in the great leadership position mention some "novel" idea, the people down there all follow like bees to the honey. Ever since the concept of HUB being mentioned, suddenly you hear all sorts of HUBs being created or pursued, quite mindlessly.

In this case, it seems that we have gone overboard. There is apparently no proper guidelines, control mechanism and supervision from the relevant authorities. What we are witnessing is basically everyone trying to push over their responsibility when something goes wrong. Should the Minister in charge of Ministry of Education be held responsible for this mess of having unqualified institutions chunking out unaccredited degrees to the consumers, be it local or foreign? Or just the MP in charge of CASE?

It seems that so far, nobody is interested in clearing up this mess. How long should we tolerate should attitude of no accountability and irresponsibility?

Goh Meng Seng

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/44648-singapore-on-list-of-degree-mill-countries

Singapore on list of ‘degree mill’ countries

SINGAPORE, Nov 26 — Degree mills that churn out ‘graduates’ at the drop of a hat are the sort of dodgy outfits we link with shadier parts of the world, but the problem is a lot closer to home and threatens to harm Singapore’s name as an education centre.

Small as it is, the country appears six times on a list compiled by Oregon’s Office of Degree Authorisation (ODA).

The American state has strict laws regarding the use of qualifications from unaccredited institutions and those dubbed “degree mills” or “degree suppliers”.

It requires that a person’s business cards, CV and letterhead declare if his degree is from an unaccredited university.

The term — degree or diploma mill — has been used in the United States and around the world to refer to “substandard or fraudulent colleges that offer potential students degrees with little or no serious work”.

They range from those which are simple frauds — an address to which people send money in exchange for a degree — to those that require some nominal work from the student but do not require the college-level study normally required for a degree.

Oregon’s laws make its list one of the most comprehensive compiled by a state government body in the United States.

It names six institutions here as offering unaccredited qualifications: Cranston University, Templeton University, Trident University of Technology, Vancouver University Worldwide, Westmore University and Lee Community College.

Names of institutions go on the list if there are queries made by members of the public. Checks are carried out on the status of the university both in the US and with foreign governments before they are put on the list.

Checks by The Straits Times found that Westmore University’s website is hosted by a company operating out of Science Park.

Vancouver University Worldwide, which was ordered to be shut by the Canadian government two years ago, had offered its courses here for a few years.

Several insurance industry professionals have MBAs, while some even have doctorates, from the university.

A few Singaporeans were also found to have degrees from Cranston University and Templeton University. Both are listed as online universities, based in Singapore and possibly Nevada.

The Palin School of Arts and Design in Bras Basah lists Trident University of Technology degrees, but Palin officials say that currently they are not offering the degree programme in advertising and design.

ODA’s list says Trident was denied approval by the state of Wisconsin and it was never legal in New Jersey as claimed.

But what was surprising was the presence on the list of Lee Community College. The private school has a CaseTrust for Education quality mark and is popular for its diploma courses in counselling and psychology.

The Straits Times found that the school, in Maxwell Road, also offers a degree from the American University for Humanities (AUH), which a staff member said is accredited by the American Academy for Liberal Education.

ODA’s website has this to say about the American university: “New name for American University of Hawaii, which was closed by court order. Operations claiming accreditation from The American Academy for Liberal Education in Lebanon do not meet Oregon legal requirements and degrees are not valid here. Degrees issued from Delaware are not valid in Oregon.”

Although the school has been offering degree courses for years, a check with the Ministry of Education (MOE) revealed that Lee Community College is not approved to offer any external degree programmes.

An MOE spokesman said the matter would be investigated.

It warned that new regulations require all private schools to seek permission from the new statutory board, the Council for Private Education (CPE) before offering external degree programmes, including online programmes.

Non-compliance may lead to deregistration of the private school and prosecution of its officials.

Lee Community College’s chief executive, Dr Frederick Toke, said the school spent over US$100,000 (RM338,000) to seek accreditation for the degree programme, which was from the American University for Humanities in Tbilisi, Georgia.

It was accredited by the American Academy for Liberal Education, a recognised accrediting agency in the US for liberal arts institutions, but was rejected by the MOE.

Toke did not explain why the school continued to offer the degree despite the MOE rejection. He would only say that the school is now seeking MOE approval to run other degree programmes from the US.

Alan Contreras, the administrator for Oregon’s ODA, said Singapore never used to feature on the ODA’s list.

“The problem Singapore has is that it opened the door to private post-secondary education without establishing a serious governmental oversight process to make those providers prove that they are legitimate,” he said.

“In effect, your government has allowed its name to be used inappropriately because only government authorised colleges can issue genuine degrees.”

Contreras also warned: “Without enforcement of standards by the government, anything goes. This is why the reputation of degrees issued in Singapore is falling.”

The MOE said that under the new laws that will come into effect by the end of the year, the Council for Private Education will run checks on these claimed partnerships.

“These measures will help ensure that dubious programmes offered by degree mills will not be permitted by CPE to be offered in Singapore,” said the spokesman.

But the new laws have come too late for a 26-year-old who attended evening classes and did course work for over three years for an AUH degree from Lee Community College.

The administrative manager hopes the new laws for private schools will ensure that only valid degrees are offered here.

“I took up the degree because I was interested in a counselling career. I spent more than US$20,000 of my hard-earned money to study for the degree. Now I find out that it is worthless.”