Hot case and hot property

Trying trysts
I’m having a hard time trying to make sense of the sex-for-grades case. Which way does this go: She gave sex so she can get good grades? Or: If she gave him sex, he will give her good grades ? Or: She loves him and never thought anything about grades? Or: He wasn’t averse to having something on the side but grades didn’t cross his mind?
I think we know more about MontBlanc pens (and he says he uses Shaeffer), monogrammed tailored shirts and his red sofa (who has a picture?) which is where both trysts occurred.

The media needs to give a better guide on what the case is about – the criminal one. We all know teacher-student sex is wrong; married man-other woman sex is wrong. The criminal part is again on that famous word “corrupt intent’’.
Anyway, it was fun to read about the exchange between law teacher and ex-law student (and nobody’s found out where she works???) I was especially amused by her use of “undue prejudice’’ instead of favour or disfavour in her statement to CPIB. I don’t think I would ever use such a phrase but now I will bear it in mind….
What’s interesting is that like the Ng Boon Gay case, it sheds light on CPIB’s practices. A key one appears to be: You not afraid the whole world will know about you? – that was in response to Darinne Koh’s request about a lawyer. I believe a similar statement/comment/promise was made to Cecilia Sue in the Ng Boon Gay case too.

Hot property
Not women, but those places were people want to buy to live in or invest in. So we have PRs screaming unfair that they have to pay more stamp duty etc. It’s a further differentiation in the status of a PR and citizen. I am tempted to say that PRs should lump it. They still have their own home to go to while the rest of us have to actually live here. But then again, that would make me sound real xenophobic.

For me, the most important thing is whether property prices will fall as a result. (I also want to buy something lah.) And how creative developers can get in making the price right. They’ve shown themselves to be extremely entrepreneurial in the past. An ST Forum page letter writer already alluded to this today – give rebates, absorb stamp duty etc. Then the G would have to jump in again. Very hard to rein in private enterprise…

As for those gigantic ECs, seems like Mr Khaw Boon Wan thinks that capping the size would put paid to all the high-priced skysuites. That, and restricting the development of public areas to add to the unit’s size. Then there is the dual key concept for multi-generational families to live next to each other, except that some owners are renting it out. Now they definitely must be multi-generational families.

Actually, I didn’t realise it was so easy for EC owners to rent out their places. They don’t have to abide by HDB rules on staying on a certain period before renting it out? I would love to know how many people are profiting this way – and also how does the G even know about this? Taxes on rental income? Check against registered addresses?

Building on numbers

All those building numbers are making me dizzy. You know, the number of BTO flats to be built, private homes, EC sites and land sales…What I know is that we are building like crazy.

So I had a good look at the private housing numbers that are coming up, depending of course on whether developers buy and build on those sites that the G is releasing as reported today.

Actually, I am not sure I care. Isn’t the problem whether or not people can afford to buy property? Does a bigger supply of homes translate to lower property prices? I had to plough through half of the ST P1 story to find out that it won’t.
I went to BT and found that the land releases for private homes are represented as “joyous tidings’’. I wonder for whom? Private developers? Or home buyers? (you would think that plenty of people are unhoused at the moment)

I am not sure what to think after reading the stories although I’m sure the real estate types would make more of it. BT had a chart on number of homes to be built while ST had maps of plum sites. I wish one paper would have BOTH so I don’t have to read so much text.

What I was interested in was that ECs will form 45 per cent or 3,110 of supply in the “confirmed’’ list in the first half of next year. I guess we’ll see more penthouses for the sandwiched class soon. Isn’t it time we took a look at the sky-high EC prices and see if the policy still holds? I mean, ECs are classified as “private housing’’ even though they are subsidised and subject to some HDB-like rulings. Are EC developers making a killing on taxpayers’ money? I want to be enlightened.

Another numbers story that left me in a fog was over how we spent a record $7.4b on R&D last year. According to ST, it was by both private and public sectors, although it didn’t say who was responsible for how much. Reading the article though, you would think this was all G largesse, courtesy of A*Star. Especially when it mentioned that $16b had been set aside for the next R&D five-year plan – 20 per cent more than over the previous five years.

I had to turn to BT for the full picture. And that is: Private sector research, especially by foreign companies, out-paced that of the public sector. Local companies still lag behind, not a good sign given the productivity push Singapore is embarking on.

Also, here’s an interesting case of how numbers can look good or bad:
ST said that last year’s research spending of 2.3 per cent of GDP brings Singapore “closer’’ to other countries famed for research, such as Denmark.
It added that the Republic’s target is to get it up to 3.5 per cent in 2015, which would put it on par with the top research countries such as Israel and Japan.

BT, on the hand, did not refer to the levels of research in other countries. Instead it pitted Singapore’s achievement against its own target: Despite a red-letter year, the country’s research intensiveness is 2.3 per cent of the economy, still some way off its 2015 goal of spending 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product on R&D.
Amazing what sort of spin you can give to numbers. Also shows why you have to read more than just one media for a full picture.

A fare-y tale

With Palmergate going on, I guess Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew must be getting some respite from those who have been haranguing him about his comments that bus fares must go up so that bus drivers’ salaries can. Frankly, it was a crazy thing to say. Nobody is going to take that sort of comment sitting down, especially about an essential service like public transport, ran by profit-making private operators who’ve just been handed $1.1b worth of new buses paid by taxpayers.

Mr Lui tried to clarify his position according to media reports today. Note I use the word “tried’’. Now he says it wasn’t to increase bus operators’ profits in the short-term but he just wanted to make clear that the money for salaries must come from somewhere, not just from operators or government subsidies. And of course, he meant that service levels must go up…you ninny.

He added: “What received less notice was my statement that when the fare review committee submits its report next year, we would be better able to see the relationship between any fare adjustment, wage increases, and what government support needs to be given to the groups most affected by the increase’’.

He might as well have said that he should have said nothing at all and wait for the Richard Magnus report early next year. If Mr Lui was flying a kite with his first comments, the kite’s been shot down. In any case, an increase in bus fares is poison for the G in any election…or by-election.

Driving me round the bend

I don’t know why anyone would bother to ask about how you feel about raising bus fares. Of course, the answer is no. No to higher fares, charges, taxes, fees and the price of kopi-o.

You want us to pay more? Better deliver more. That would be the layman’s answer. So Lui Tuck Yew’s very tentative kite-flying proposal on having to raise fares so operators can pay their bus drivers more has been universally derided. Far more productive is experts had been canvassed for their views on whether this is the only way to get a man to don a uniform and get behind the wheel.

Here’s a look at some facets of the “should we increase bus fare’’ question:

1. The Government already subsidises the transport infrastructure, even giving away buses for free. That is, with taxpayers’ money. And these are being given practically on a plate to transport operators.
2. The bus operators aren’t just bus operators. They operate a whole transport system and while the bus services might not be making money, other parts of the business are. And they are making money.
3. Which raises the question of why revenue from one part of the business can’t be shifted to another, unless there is some accounting barrier that can’t be crossed.
4. If the problem is paying bus drivers enough, then operators should look at their pay structure across the ranks, from top down and see what sort of re-calibration should be done to get more people to drive buses. They are “essential’’ manpower after all. And what about looking at private transport operators elsewhere which manage to ensure their drivers make a decent living?
5. A committee is looking at the fare formula which doesn’t seem to be working because it’s pegged too late to inflation. Also, seems costs have gone up what? 30? 40 per cent? Compared to small revenue rises. What’s this cost increase all about? Is there no way the bus companies could have trimmed that down? We don’t know yet what the new fare formula will look like but there seems to be a hint that a fuel or energy component will be included.
6. The G is tendering out routes to private bus companies, a sign which ST’s Chris Tan said today, of the G dipping its toes into a new way of structuring public transport. In other places, operators tender to run a service, and the G collects the fare. Problem is, operators tend to get tardy in such a scenario and not cost-efficient. Which brings us back to point e. Are the bus companies operating efficiently in the first place?

Finally, are we looking at this all wrong? So a COI was convened to look at MRT disruptions, SMRT is chided for bad HR practices, unions want in on the transport sector, LTA doesn’t seem to be strong enough regulator, a new committee looks at fare formula, bus drivers should be paid more, questions are raised on whether it is prudent for foreign labour to man essential services.

Is it time to take a more (I hate this word) holistic look at Singapore’s transport system than recommend piecemeal changes?

 

Home sweet EC home

I am turning green. With envy. Jealousy. CityLife@Tampines is oversubscribed three times, with many many people interested in those 4,300 sqf penthouses.  And here’s my rant: How can those people who earn less than $12,000 a month afford this? Neither ST nor BT published the price that those luxury homes or sky suites in CityLife@Tampines  is going for (How can? Basic info!) And I am too lazy to go check on past articles which others paid to do the job should have done.

Something must be terribly wrong with the executive condo scheme  if homes are going for a million bucks or so, whether new or resale. . Even the restrictions on sale of the unit aren’t deterring people going by the interest showed.

Minister Khaw Boon Wan sent out this intriguing message earlier reminding developers of the objectives of the EC – to cater to those who can’t meet HDB income ceiling requirements and can’t afford private property. Well, seems like a lot of people can…go for private property I mean.

So I am wondering what Mr Khaw meant by his reminder: That ECs should be priced cheaper? Less luxurious? But if those with $12,000 a month can afford it, why not? Or should the G really be looking at that income ceiling instead and re-examining the original concept of ECs?

Graphics needed

When it comes to instant news graphics, I’ve always thought the TNP unbeatable. It does it again with a graphic on the jack-up rig in Jurong shipyard which collapsed. It described the parts of the rig, where the workers’ living quarters were and looked at the jacking mechanism which apparently failed causing the rig to tilt.  I learnt about this thing called a spud can – shoes that secure the legs of the rig to the seabed. Canned potatoes?

I’m not sure though about why TNP made a big deal about there being only one single-file gangway for the workers to get to safety. Is there supposed to be more than one? What if the rig was offshore? No gangway then.

I was also interested in one unnamed oil rig expert’s view that the failure of jacking mechanisms usually happen off shore – and not in a shipyard, except for one case he recalled that happened in Korea. I wonder what happened over there.

(While I am on this, I was interested to read in ST that the shipyard did NOT call for emergency help. I suppose the shipyard thought it could handle the cases on its own? It was members of the public which alerted the civil defence people.)

I wish the TNP did more graphics beyond the death and disaster types. I’m referring to two big stories that I have some difficulty following today: the possible SIA-Virgin split and Olam’s rights issue response to Carson Block.

I thought BT did the best in both stories, in explaining the issues and using rather fine language that didn’t descend into financial jargon.

I learnt from BT about the history of the SIA-Virgin marriage and how SIA thought it would reap the benefits of Virgin’s access to the American eastern seaboard when it bought a stake in the carrier – but got only the occasional dividends. Housekeeping allowance, I suppose.

There’s some kind of cold war on: how Virgin didn’t want SIA having a say in its management. And how SIA bars Virgin from competing with it in the Asia-Pacific region.

I liked how BT explained that this advantage was more or less erased when SIA was granted rights to fly to US from London. Still, because Heathrow was crowded, the Virgin connection was useful.

In other words, it wasn’t a marriage on the rocks as described by BT methinks,  more like an indifferent, cold marriage which can be dissolved amicably now that there is a potential buyer for SIA’s Virgin stake.

Now could TNP have presented the issue graphically? I think so. What about a couple fighting over the world  with an atlas in background and details of the SIA-Virgin connections including those to Australia?

Likewise BT explained Olam’s latest move to counter short seller Carson Block – in text. It did creditably methinks as even Sunny Verghese said the rights/warrants deal was a complicated structure for the layman to understand. The main reason for Olam’s move, I THINK, was to get those who lent their shares to Carson Block to get them back from him because some better deals are in store for them. That’s my flimsy understanding of the issue.

Of course, some people would argue that readers of TNP aren’t interested in financial deals. Maybe so. It’s a waste. Because I don’t see other media doing good enough explanatory graphics.

 

An unproductive time

What’s the job of the news media? It’s to make sense of what people are saying, put stuff in perspective and tell me what’s important. I read and re-read ST’s piece today on MOM Minister Tan Chuan Jin’s blog and kept wondering what’s the point he’s trying to make…After all, did he already say most of these things in Parliament before? Or is there some new nugget somewhere? All that mass of numbers – all to show that the G is on “the right track’’? I was having a very unproductive morning. I was wondering if I should whip out my calculator and see if there was more to the figures on WP, S passes etc and decided, in my laziness, that I should just see if Today did a better job. It did. And it also helpfully provided me with what Tan Chuan Jin said in his blog in its comment pages. ST didn’t do the minister any justice, I thought. What I found intriguing is the higher absolute numbers of Spass holders.
From January to June, the number of work permits for low-skilled workers increased by 20,600 – largely due to foreign construction workers – and S Passes for mid-skilled workers grew by 14,200. Employment Passes for managerial or executive-level foreigners contracted slightly by 700 – the first half-yearly reduction since 2009 when a recession hit.

The “strong growth” in S Passes is likely due to companies using them to bring in more junior-level professionals, managers and executives now that Employment Pass requirements have been tightened, said Mr Tan. “We are taking a close look at this group,” he wrote.
In Parliament, he had talked about the higher rejection rate. Seems this rate isn’t translating into lower absolute numbers, which is what people want to see. Makes you think there’s a loophole somewhere. Can’t get EP so see how to smuggle them under SPass?
Then of course, there is all this talk about raising productivity. When I hear about our productivity being so low, I keep wondering if we’re lazy or stupid. We’re not right? Anyway, MOM’s Tan went on in his blog about some Hotel scheme to allow workers to train to straddle different jobs. I wonder if this is one of the 160 schemes offered by the G to help firms raise productivity. I mean, 160???? So if there are so many schemes and we still so unproductive, what does it mean? The whole thing is too confusing for SMEs? If I were an SME boss, I’d apply for as many as possible – like a welfare shopper. Or maybe I will find myself strangled by red tape. As a taxpayer though, I wonder if agencies are duplicating each other in their efforts. Time to prune the tangle, as is now being done for welfare cases, so that the agencies will be more productive in their productivity efforts?

I had two other “unproductive” moments:
a. Having to read PM on page 1 of ST. It’s exhortation and dragged out to make a story. Seems a better news story is further inside, on how retail investors can now have a better shot at subscribing to a company’s IPO.
b. Having to read TNP’s Cecilia Sue story. Yesterday, it rehashed the whole court case albeit with a nice concept of Victim/Vixen and a piece on the court gawkers. There’s another piece on the gawkers today….Enuff already. Just tell me who those burly guys around her are!!!!

New rules for civil servants

This whole corrupt civil servants business has got me thinking that the Civil Service should amend its instructional manual and make it more specific.
a. Do not go for business lunches. Eat in the staff canteen. And return your tray.
b. Don’t play golf. You don’t know which business contact you might meet.
c. Don’t go on holidays with a member of the opposite sex who is not your spouse.
d. If you do need sex, go to a prostitute. Remember to pay her. And check her IC
e. That diary you’re using, is it ours?
f. Re-screen your Facebook friends. Unfriend those who have any business with you.
g. While you are at it, screen out PAP activists – you don’t know when they will appear at a National Conversation forum.
h. Don’t invite relatives who are businessmen for Chinese New Year. This is to avoid you having to receive their oranges.
i. Does your work have anything to do with procurement? Ask for a transfer.
j. Ditch your Brompton bike.

In the dock

The case of the philandering professor
So Tey Tsun Hang’s case has been postponed to mid-December because the courts agreed that he needed time to prepare. Good for Tey. Seems to me he does need the stuff he asked for, like the transcripts of the students he was said to have “upgraded’’. And those medical reports on the day of his CPIB interrogation. Seems that the former district judge didn’t realise he had to apply to the district judge for the kind of information he wanted. Guess he will get it right this time. This case is too juicy for words. Who are the four other ex-students (including a man) besides the one in the case cited? And what about those allegations that he confessed under duress, in his hospital garb, while on psychoactive drugs and in a “mentally altered state’’? Doesn’t look good for the CPIB’s interrogation techniques. I mean, I know an interrogation isn’t supposed to be comfortable…but….?

The case of the woman in love
In love – or not? That’s what Cecilia Sue seemed to have told investigators of the CNB director’s case. But she also contradicted herself as well when she said Ng Boon Gay had helped her secure a contract. The whole case is puzzling with the prosecutor acknowledging that Ng didn’t interfere in the procurement process. So it seems a case of sexual harassment? That he forced her into having sex or she was “compelled’’to do so because she was afraid of pissing off this very important man? And she was compelled to do so only four times despite a relationship that stretched back to 2009? I tend to agree with defence lawyer Tan Chee Meng description of the prosecution taking a blunderbuss approach. How is Ng supposed to prove his innocence like this? Divorce his wife and marry the woman?

The case of the two other women
So the prosecution is proceeding with one charge and one woman first against the SCDF chief. I read ST and had to be wondering why the other two women who have been publicly named weren’t getting hauled up too. ST reported that the charges against them had been “stood down’’ – not withdrawn. I wish journalists would realised not all readers would understand what this phrase means and why this happened. Today reported that it was probably because they wanted to get the clearest cut charge out of the way first so things won’t get complicated. Then the other women would be grilled too. Phew! For a moment there, I thought everyone has done those women a big injustice – I mean they’ve been named and all that….

The case of the “biased’’ doctors
This was in The Sunday Times. It’s about how the courts ticked off the Singapore Medical Council for “picking on’’ (my words) one aesthetic doctor even though guidelines on aesthetic medicine hadn’t even been issued. What about the rest of the doctors who practise beauty medicine then? The interesting thing is that the charges against the doctor was brought to the SMC’s attention by the Ministry of Health. Sort of begs the question why MOH accused her, and only her, of practising non-evidence based medicine in November 2007, before those guidelines were introduced the following year. And the SMC sat in judgement only LAST YEAR. By the way, wasn’t the SMC supposed to have changed its disciplinary processes in the meantime? By getting a lawyer on board the panel or something? Didn’t work?

Question time

News media should alert readers when questions are NOT answered by newsmakers. ST did so with three stories I thought.
Page 1: Far fewer PRs admitted from 2010.
That 30 per cent of applications of Employment and Special passes were turned down in the first six months for this year, up from 26 per cent for the whole of last year. ST added that the minister did not give absolute numbers of applications for both years. Yup, I think people would be more interested in absolute numbers who get in, rather than a percentage of a total that is not made public. In any case, why six months compared to a year? Shouldn’t it be compared over a similar time frame?
Page 2: On what parents want to know about primary education and the ministry’s replies.
It noted that MOE did not “directly’’ answer the question of whether teachers teach curriculum that most of the children already know. I wish though that readers were given the MOE’s answer, to judge how “indirectly’’ this was answered.
Home Page B5: Bill to protect personal data tabled
Today had the fuller story on the penalties etc for someone passing on your personal information, but ST had one line which stuck out: The Bill will not cover government agencies. Eh? So is the Bill to prevent the private sector hounding you with promos and sales only? And the G can willy nilly pass on data? The G is too big a presence in this country. I hope when the Bill comes up for debate, some MPs will ask about how the G uses personal information of citizens.
I’m glad that the media is making references to such matters, even if it is done obliquely. Too often, we read stuff too quickly, absorbing just the facts given and without question. It’s what I call lazy reading. The media should make us pause and reflect as well. Can more be done about newsmakers’ replies to questions? What about the top questioners in the land, parliamentarians?
I was a bit disappointed to NOT read about anyone raising the point about values (not monetary) in the Brompton bike case. Good that everything is being tightended up and so forth, but one big question is whether $2,200 bikes is too much money, never mind the procurement process. And btw, what is this about the “females’’ being the people who requested the foldable bikes? ?? On this topic, I note that Today reported that an internal manual will be updated to “sensitise’’ civil servants on money matters. I wonder what this means. As for MND Minister Khaw Boon Wan’s reply on whether netizens helped in “breaking’’ or “shaping’’ the story…looks to me he was a bit half-hearted. Maybe they might not have broken the story, or given new information, but I should think the degree of public interest and the involvement on the part of the usually apathetic citizen should be applauded and welcomed.
I was, however, interested in NCMP Yee Jenn Jong’s take on whether grants should be given to private pre-school operators, the same way it is given to PCF and NTUC. Particularly, his “finding’’ that while the anchor operators enjoy a cost advantage of $200, the median fees are lower than private operators by just over $200. In other words, strip out the grant and the fees will be just about as much as what private operators judge? Despite their bigger number of skools which should reap some economies of scale?