For the third time in 2023, Sea’s stock cratered following disappointing quarterly results, despite the fact that it’s only the first time in a year that the company has posted losses. This may sound like quite a paradox, considering that its value had for years rallied to stratospheric valuations (nearing US$200 billion at its peak back in 2021), when it was burning hundreds of millions per quarter. And yet now, when it has had the first profitable year, these seemingly positive results are met with disappointment. Another brick in the wall In reality — however surprising — it’s not the loss of US$144 million in Q3 (while investors expected another profitable quarter), but the paltry bump of just 16 per cent in e-commerce revenue that really soured the mood. If you can’t offer profits, you have to show growth. If you achieved neither, your valuation is going to crash. As a group, it’s even worse, as Sea reported just a 5 per cent increase year-on-year, which might as well be zero if we consider inflation figures. For comparison, it was 17 per cent in 2022, on top of 32 per cent growth in e-commerce, not to mention 122 per cent and 134 per cent respectively the year before, when red hot Sea reached its peak valuation. These days are now gone, unlikely to return in foreseeable future. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly played right into the company’s hands, radically boosting demand for two main pillars of its business — digital shopping (Shopee) and digital entertainment (Garena), as millions of people were stuck at home under lockdowns. That said, e-commerce is considered an evergreen industry. After all, the penetration of online retail is still limited and projected to increase for years to come. The pandemic was widely considered a godsend, which would simply accelerate the trends — and it has. However, it has not been enough to meaningfully offset the inevitable drop in Garena’s gaming revenue, which shrank by about 50 per cent over the past two years, from US$1.1 billion in 2021 to a smidgen under US$600 million today, as users returned to normal life. Yes, Shopee has grown by US$800 million more in sales over the same period, but with razor-thin margins, inflation bloating the figures and pushing interest rates up, it’s clear that not only has the rapid growth ended, but it doesn’t seem that the company knows what to do next. Garena has for long been a pretty successful, profitable business. Ultimately, though, it was supposed to be a springboard for Shopee into global e-commerce worth trillions (and growing). This was the big dream that made investors go crazy, valuing each share at over US$360 dollars in November 2021. It’s just US$36 today. And while SeaMoney, the digital finance arm, is improving every quarter, it’s still far from making a major impact on the results and was conceived to largely depend on the company’s strength in retail. But as growth in one segment stalls, it’s hard to expect miracles in the other. Sea has hit a wall and needs to reinvent its growth engine, Shopee, in this new reality or face stagnation that it might not have enough resources to get out of. More at https://vulcanpost.com/845165/sea-has-to-reinvent-shopee-app-or-accept-costly-stagnation

The 10 foreigners Singapore police arrested last week in a billion-dollar money-laundering case were reported at the time to be citizens from a range of countries including China, Vanuatu, Cyprus, Türkiye and Cambodia. However, all also had passports believed to have been issued by various other countries. So where were these alleged money launderers really from and how might they have obtained all those passports?  What were the raids about? Police said 400 officers fanned out across the city state last Tuesday, August 15, and launched simultaneous raids on residences at least nine locations, netting assets totalling $S1 billion ($1.15 billion). These included 94 properties, bank accounts with $S110 million, 50 vehicles, cash amounting to more than $S23 million, hundreds of luxury handbags and watches, fistfuls of jewellery and two gold bars. The foreigners arrested were aged between 31 and 44, including a 40-year-old Cypriot national who jumped out of the second-floor balcony of his bungalow and was found hiding in a drain. Twelve more were "assisting with investigations" and eight are still wanted, police said.  A police statement said the group was suspected to be laundering proceeds from overseas organised crime, including "scams and online gambling" and were charged with offences including money laundering, forgery and resisting arrest. Some were found with one or even two extra passports for different countries. David Chew, director of commercial affairs at the police force, said Singapore had "zero tolerance" for being used as a safe haven for criminals or their families and for banking facilities to be abused. "Our message to these criminals is simple — if we catch you, we will arrest you. If we find your ill-gotten gains, we will seize them. We will deal with you to the fullest extent of our laws," he said. Isn't Singapore supposed to be 'squeaky clean'? Transparency International Australia chief executive Clancy Moore told the ABC that despite Singapore's reputation for strict enforcement of the law, it was actually an attractive place to set up shop for money launderers. "Singapore offers criminals, crooks and kleptocrats one of the world's top secrecy jurisdictions to stash their illicit finances and proceeds from crime," Mr Moore said. "It's home to many regional banking institutions, has a very low corporate tax and people can create company structures with a click of a mouse. "For example, we know that many organised crime gangs and authoritarian regimes like the Myanmar junta use Singapore as their financial hub to clean their dirty money." Where were the suspects originally from? Among the nine men and one woman arrested were three citizens of China, three of Cambodia, one of Vanuatu, one of Türkiye and two of Cyprus.   However, in the days following the raids it emerged that all were originally from China's Fujian province. Among the items seized were extra passports for the suspects — in addition to their nominal citizenship — that police believed were issued by countries including Vanuatu, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Cambodia and Dominica. Many countries have pathways to citizenship through investment, though some pathways are much shorter than others.  Countries that still have fast-track schemes taking just months include Türkiye, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Dominica. The EU last year suspended Vanuatu's visa waiver agreement over its lucrative "golden passport" scheme amid concerns it lacked due diligence and could pose security and money-laundering risks.  The scheme, which accounted for about a third of Vanuatu's government revenue in 2020, allowed people to buy citizenship for $US130,000. Cyprus cancelled its Citizenship by Investment Program in 2020 following an Al Jazeera investigation into its use by criminals.  In the wake of the Singapore police operation, Cypriot MP Irene Charalambidou asked for a full briefing from the interior ministry, the Cyprus Mail reported. "The international stigmatisation of our country as a result of the abuse behind the golden passports should be immediately managed by the competent minister, so their passports are revoked," she said. The Phnom Penh Post reported that three of the suspects had received Cambodian citizenship through naturalisation in 2018 and 2019.  Why might the suspects have extra passports? Mr Moore said obtaining additional citizenships was useful for money launderers. "Citizenship makes it easier for money launderers to set-up company structures and buy property and invest in a new country so as to avoid detection and regulation," he said. "Many countries set up golden visa and passport schemes to attract investment and business. "Over the last decade, corrupt public officials and business people have bought up golden passports and visas, helping to conceal their assets and identities." Mr Moore said scandals had demonstrated that these opaque schemes were not about genuine investment or migration. "Since the invasion in Ukraine, Russians are making up a majority of people who have acquired citizenship using this route," he said. "Transparency International Australia has argued for years that fast-track investment migration schemes are riddled with corruption risks and enable money laundering. "In Australia and parts of Europe, controversial golden visa programs have been scrapped in recent years due to concerns with rorting, risks of money laundering and general integrity of the schemes." ABC/Reuters https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-25/singapore-money-laundering-case-citizenships-passports/102767474

• In its heyday, Orchard Towers – known locally as ‘4 Floors of Whores’ – was full of go-go bars, strip clubs and discos that drew crowds • Now, those nightclubs that remain have until the end of the month to move out, leaving exotic dancers, live bands and sex workers in the lurch Bryan Ong grew up in Singapore. His upbringing was anything but typical. His father, Murray, was a seaman who often travelled to Brazil and dreamed of bringing the country’s electric parties to the city state. In 1998, when Ong was 9, his dad opened a nightclub and named it Ipanema after the bossa nova song The Girl From Ipanema. But what really sets the nightclub – and Ong’s childhood – apart was the club’s location. Ipanema is in Singapore’s Orchard Towers. In its heyday, the building was full of go-go bars, strip clubs, and discos that drew in hordes of people seeking a good time. Locally it’s known as “Four Floors of Whores”. “In the ‘90s, I grew up in a childcare centre right here in Orchard Towers,” Ong said. “It was packed. There were people everywhere, on all four floors.” Orchard Towers has since “toned down massively”, Ong said. It’s still home to Singapore’s most famous unofficial red-light district, where freelance sex workers ply their trade, but time is running out. In August, authorities began forcing nightclubs at Orchard Towers to shut down – and Ipanema was no exception. Police told local paper The Straits Times that concerns with “public safety, vice activities, and nuisance” led to its decision to do away with the nightclubs. Now Orchard Towers is transforming into another neighbourhood shopping centre, with a handful of new tenants filling up the empty spaces, selling antiques, carpets, and photo frames. Even as the new crowd moves in, the livelihoods of the nightclub owners and the sex workers who depended on Orchard Towers for income are at stake. The Singapore Police Force declined to comment on this story. Ong was interviewed in Ipanema on a recent Tuesday night at the nightclub’s moving-out party. It was 11pm, and the nightclub was the busiest spot in the building, with dozens of partygoers dancing, drinking beer, and filling up their plates with food from the closing-party buffet. Contrary to Orchard Tower’s reputation, the nightclub didn’t come across as sleazy. “Singapore is quite sterile, so to have an establishment like Orchard Towers gives it some edge, a fun element,” Ong, now 33, said at the party that night. His family’s nightlife business has grown to include another bar in Orchard Towers, and he now manages the entire business. I feel sorry for my staff – where can they go? Customers are very disappointed. It’s over Abe Isaac, nightclub owner The building has a lingering reputation as dangerous, largely because of two high-profile murders that happened there in 2002 and 2019. But in recent years, violent crime at Orchard Towers has diminished, with only one brawl reported since the impending shutdown of nightclubs was announced last year. Ong said there’s more to Orchard Towers than its sordid reputation. “The nightlife industry sustains a lot of families,” he said. “The standard of living in Singapore is very high. The nightlife industry allows people to take on a second job.” Abe Isaac is the owner of a nightclub called Naughty Girl. In the 1970s, Isaac’s father converted a department store into a popular nightclub in Orchard Towers. “It was an R&B joint where American sailors used to go. It was a party club where we had all-US bands at that time performing,” Isaac said over the phone. As the area around Orchard Towers developed into a high-end enclave full of luxury shopping centres and five-star hotels, Orchard Towers went the other way: it got raunchier and seedier. After decades of trying to keep brawls away from his nightclub, Isaac now faces a new challenge: keeping his business alive. He estimated it would cost S$400,000 to S$500,000 (about US$300,000 to US$375,000), to take over another venue and stay afloat. Banks, he said, are hesitant to loan that sum to nightclubs. Authorities gave him until July 31 to move out. “I’ve looked all over Singapore, but there’s no place to go. My club is 4,000 square feet, with a live band, a stage, and all-Singapore talent,” Isaac said. “It took 40 years for Orchard Towers to become an entertainment centre that’s known all over the world. But it’s gone in just a couple of months and destroyed the whole industry,” he added. In Singapore, sex workers must apply for a yellow card, which allows them to work in brothels in Geylang, the city state’s sanctioned red-light district. But according to Project X, a non-profit organisation that’s supported sex workers in Singapore since 2008, there are many rules to qualify for this card. Workers must be between 21 and 35, cannot be male, and must come from an approved list of countries. Sex workers are also not allowed to have romantic relationships with Singaporeans. Over the years, many sex workers saw more opportunities a few miles west of Geylang at Orchard Towers. It’s become known as Singapore’s unofficial red-light district. Vanessa Ho, the executive director of Project X, said the impact of the closures extended far beyond the nightclub owners. “Orchard Towers has been a space for adult entertainment since the ‘90s. There are different types of workers: bar hostesses, bouncers, bartenders, chefs, musicians, performers, erotic dancers, and, of course, there are also sex workers, erotic masseuses, and street-based sex workers,” Ho said, adding that their livelihoods would all be affected. Sex workers at Orchard Towers come from many countries, including Kenya, Cambodia, Argentina, Australia, and the Philippines, Ho said. While sex work through licensed brothels is legal in Singapore, it’s illegal in all other parts of the city, including in or around Orchard Towers. As the nightclubs at Orchard Towers inch closer to the closing date on July 31, remnants of their colourful history remain. The doors of Top 5, a popular club in the building, are still plastered with vintage photos of exotic dancers and live bands. But the outlook for the people who’ve kept these places running is bleak. “The bands tell me they have nowhere else to play,” said Isaac, the owner of Naughty Girl. “I feel sorry for my staff – where can they go? Customers are very disappointed. It’s over.” In hopes of retaining his staff, he’s planning to open a restaurant in the revamped Orchard Towers. Ong has found a new venue for his nightclub on Cecil Street – about 4km (2.5 miles) from Orchard Towers – and dozens of long-time customers have said they’ll continue visiting Ipanema in its new location. As for the sex workers, Ho said they’d see a sharp decline in customers, threatening their livelihood at Orchard Towers. “Many of these migrant workers pay hefty agent fees or have debts owing to their agents,” she said. “The loss of income can have a severe impact on their ability to pay back their loans, further spiralling them into debt and, for some, poverty.” https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3226454/singapores-4-floors-whores-closes-its-nightclub-doors-sex-workers-worry-their-futures

By all accounts, Tharman seems like a very decent man. He is absent the dismissive, obnoxious demeanor of Teo Chee Hean (Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security), the Mandarin entitlement posturing of Chan Chun Sing (Education Minister), or 2 combative rottweilers Indranee Rajah (Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for National Development) and Grace Fu (Minister for Sustainability and the Environment) or fawning kings-in-waiting Lawrence Wong (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance) and Heng Swee Kiat (Dy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies). Tharman looks more like a stern bureaucrat than a politician. As Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for Social Policies, Tharman once made the anti-government statement that the policy of continual dependence on foreign labor is unsustainable. That certainly caught the attention of many in light of the extremely unpopular CECA, the Free Trade Agreement with India. A PAP self-criticism or admission of mistake is as rare as the Cullinan Diamond. Alas, it was an unlocked potential that sputtered, never allowed to be explored. Was that a one-off comment for the gallery or he received some ominous phone calls that evening? A million-dollar salary has a way of sorting things out in one’s brain. Psychiatrists call that a moral hazard. Will this moral hazard as a PAP stalwart be simply carried into the presidency? Is Tharman after all, simply switching a million dollar chair for a two million dollar seater? Kenneth Jeyeratnam reminded us of Tharman’s breach of the Official Secrets Act when the latter, as Director of MAS’ Economics Dept, showed some journalists advance GDP growth data. He was fined S$1,500 and the journalists poorer by S$2,000. In Uniquely Singapore legalese which can explain how one man can form a mob, it was easy explaining why the one who gives is punished less than the one who receives. Tharman was careless. Was the court watching out for Tharman’s planed political trajectory? A fine above S$2,000 disqualifies a person from standing for election. I am curious. In all his travels overseas, when Tharman fills the disembarkation card, which box does he tick when asked ‘have you ever been convicted in a criminal court”? Government mouth piece media Chanel News Asia screamed this headline:“Lee Hsien Yang unlikely to meet criteria to run for elected presidency given court finding of lying under oath: Lawyers” (4 Mar 2023) CNA reported: “.. lawyers said that earlier court findings that he (LHY) and his wife had lied under oath in judicial proceedings could see him fail to meet the criteria of being a candidate. This is regardless of the outcome of ongoing police investigations into the couple for potential offences of giving false evidence in the proceedings over Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s will.” CNA quoted “lawyerSSSSSS” but mentioned no names. Quoting an unnamed source is unethical journalism, quoting many unnamed sources is highly unethical journalism. I would like to ask Navene Elangovan and Charlene Goh who filed this report, which lawyers they spoke with because the last time I checked Sec 19 of The Singapore Constitution, there is nothing that disqualifies LHY from running for President. The only way LHY can be disqualified is for a compliant Presidential Selection Committee not be satisfied “that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation”. That determination will have to rest entirely on their take of the judicial proceedings CNA mentioned. This will be on a slippery slope because it was a case relating to the professional misconduct of LHY’s wife. LHY was not on trial. True that a police investigation into his purported perjury is in progress. It would be prejudicial for the PSC to discuss this. Should the PSC have a higher calling to consider this course of action, it must weigh whether the fact that Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer M/s Kwa Kim Li, who has now been found guilty of lying in the case regarding 38 Oxley Road, mitigated the actions of LHY. More importantly, PSC must then hold Tharman’s breach of the Official Secrets Act to the same standards of moral accountability. As a matter of fact, even without LHY in the race, PSC has to demonstrate it has evaluated Tharman’s brush with the law and why they find no issues with integrity, good character and reputation. PSC needs to address this even if it is to a reticent public. Failure to do so calls their credibility into question. In the political divide in Singapore, pro-PAP voices, and certainly our ever-present Polish blogger Critical Spectator’s knee-jerk reaction to Tharman’s announcement of his resignation from the PAP to enter the presidential race, is to jeer at the opposition's inability to produce a candidate. This irritates me to no end. It borders on a juvenile inability to understand the presidential election is non-political. And it is the PAP’s stealth legislation that has turned it into a political event. It is fast becoming a six-yearly farce of PAP musical chair to push a cadre to the elevated ceremonial role. The fact that Tharman gets to sit on the chair itself is troubling. In PAP’s changing of the guard, unofficial polls put him as people’s choice to lead the ruling party. The Party decided he is not suitable and was bypassed. He is now deemed best suited for the top job in the land. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose. It feeds the speculation the party is inherently racist. On paper, the terribly restrictive constitutional criteria for a presidential candidate lulls the citizenry to the PAP’s contention of the need for someone with a rare DNA who can guard the national reserves from a rogue government. In reality, it denies Singaporeans of choices. Because the schema enshrines candidates coming from the dominant PAP factory, the Office of the President has evolved into the Mother of ‘ownself check ownself’. "Ownself check ownself" is a unique Singlish slang for self monitoring or self-regulation. This is a deprecating attack dressed in humour by the opposition on the government’s propensity to whitewash shortcomings by appointing individuals or entities within the Executive to investigate their own actions. This PAP weakness has been argued in parliament. For the PAP, self-policing is good. For the opposition parties, self-policing is good but external policing is better. The PAP has been in power since independence in 1965. Lord Acton’s quote on the corruption of power rings true. The men and women in Whites now see themselves as omniscient. "Ownself check ownself" has been normalised as a management doctrine of the government. Goh Chok Tong has sang in praise of it. Ong Ye Kung said at a forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies last year : "People can say 'ownself check ownself', but I see it always as a virtue — if ownself cannot check ownself, you're in big trouble." The PAP has now made "ownself check ownself", a faulty generalisation fallacy, into a thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase to quell cognitive dissonance to end the debate with a cliché rather than a point. It is an intoxication of power to the extent of an inability to discern impartiality is the mainstay of the search for truth. Certainly a self-monitoring mechanism is good for an individual, a system or an entity. Everyone needs the little voice inside of us otherwise known as conscience, to check ourselves and help us make rightful, ethical and moral choices. In systems there are built-in self-checking utilities like redundancy tests. For entities like companies, self-policing or self-regulation, there are functions like internal auditors, to proactively monitor their own conduct or performance to ensure compliance with standards, rules, or ethical guidelines. The PAP captures the essence of "ownself check ownself" as internalised functions. If this is all there is to it, the PAP might as well close down the Inspection Dept of MAS and all external auditors are un-necessary. It is a terribly erroneous view that the opposition and 47% of Singaporeans have been trying to get through to the government. Any management guru worth his salt will advice the PAP the applicability of "ownself check ownself" is contextual. For an ongoing concern, there is the issue of who checks the checkers. Thus the need for MAS inspectors, external auditors, head office inspectors etc. "Ownself check ownself" is essential for internal line management. For third party satisfaction, an external check is the norm. Thus we have external auditors, MAS inspectors, health inspectors, inspectors from far away head offices, and the government has its Internal Auditor General, etc. The crux of the public’s discontent is to PAP’s application of "ownself check ownself" to investigations into wrong doings or failed services. It cannot be that the ruling party of scholars do not believe in independent reviews, the further removed from the Executive the better, in such circumstances. The normalisation of "ownself check ownself" is disingenuous and borders on fraudulent practice. I have no problems with Tharman as our head of state, At the personal level he has the decorum for the office. However, the Constitution places on the presidency a unique critical role of guardian of our national reserves. Tharman has been a government and PAP man his entire adult working life. As President it would make him the Mother of "ownself check ownself". https://chem-post.blogspot.com/2023/06/tharman-for-president-is-so-troubling.html

SINGAPORE - The hacker who stole Cortina Watch’s data by illegally accessing one of its servers has carried out a threat to release the information online, including customers’ contacts and addresses. Checks by The Straits Times found that more than 7GB of data, including details of customers, vendors, staff and the public-listed group’s operations, were uploaded on a file-sharing site late on Thursday. The data dump included usernames and passwords for company and staff accounts, with numerous administrator accounts sharing the same password. Information leaked on the dark web also included customer data such as contact information, home addresses and birth dates. The firm’s inventory of watches, sales orders and sales tactics were also uploaded. Some documents appeared to show how certain luxury watches were priced. In one spreadsheet titled “repeat and moving slow stock”, a list of watches included a column for “cost”, which had entries in the form of percentages. Several of the entries were below 23 per cent, right next to a column with the header “RSP”, believed to stand for retail sale price. Another spreadsheet contained a list of several watch models with different prices listed for “retail”, “walk in” and “regular”. One entry listed retail as $48,130, walk in as $75,000, and regular as $73,000. A file containing sales tactics appeared to explain how salespersons should introduce certain luxury brands during a conversation with customers, and how to convince them to buy using details about the brand’s heritage. They were also instructed to provide discounts of up to 10 per cent for certain customers and charge a higher price for walk-ins. The names of at least 12 Malaysian datuks were also part of a customer list from 2021. Cortina had detected unauthorised activity on one of its servers on Sunday. A hacker who went by the username Bassterlord claimed responsibility for the breach in a tweet the same day. He is reportedly a man in his 20s from Ukraine who heads a hacker group called the National Hazard Agency. He demanded US$50,000 (S$67,000) to either destroy or return all the data, and gave Cortina a deadline of 6pm on Thursday to negotiate payment. ST reported on the hack on Monday, and Cortina issued a public statement acknowledging the breach through a filing on the Singapore Exchange on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Mr Jeremy Lim, the chief executive officer of Cortina Watch, told ST that the company took immediate steps to “identify, contain and address the potential attack on the server” after the breach. Its website has been down since Monday. Bassterlord claimed in tweets that he had contacted Cortina at least four times over payment, but did not get a reply. After the deadline, he leaked the data on the dark web. The incident has been reported to the police and the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), which reached out to the firm for more information. The Cyber Security Agency contacted the company to offer assistance. Cortina has also notified all parties whose data was affected by the breach. Cortina Watch was founded in 1972 as a small shop in Colombo Court, in North Bridge Road, by group executive chairman Anthony Lim. It has since expanded to more than 40 stores across Asia. According to its annual report, the group’s total revenue grew 64.1 per cent to $716.9 million in 2022, with a net profit of $73.8 million. The retailer carries more than 50 luxury brands, including Rolex and Patek Philippe. More at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/hacker-leaks-cortina-watch-s-data-online-including-customer-details-and-sales-tactics

It has always been a favourite PAP tactic to show fake concern for the plight of Singaporeans and claim a false solidarity while doing their level best to undermine them and provide advantages to their competitors. This year’s May Day Speech by Lawrence Wong, eager Seatwarmer-in-Waiting to PM Lee, was no exception. Enough already with this fake solidarity with the workers.. Start with the hypocrisy of PAP leaders and Ministers earning $2-3 million a year while addressing ordinary workers as Brother. Everything about them is elitist and out of touch with the concerns of the average Singaporean yet they have the audacity to pretend that they stand with you and have your interests at heart. Ask Lawrence Wong and LHL how often they travel by public transport. Do they have to live in public housing where the sizes of flats have gotten smaller decade by decade since the 1990s? Does LHL still make use of the Temasek corporate jet as I caught him doing here (since then there’s been a news blackout)? Many Singaporean families cannot afford a holiday. Do some of the Ministers pay non-market rents for colonial era mansions on public land ?(perhaps that qualifies as living in public housing?). It would be bad enough if this helping yourself to money out of the public purse was confined to Ministers but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Frequently it extends to securing unnecessarily and obscenely well paid jobs for their spouses and relatives. Since at least 2015 I have called on the PM to reveal what he pays his wife. Even if he protests that her remuneration was approved by a corporate board it does not alter the fact that he appoints the board and no doubt has a say in their remuneration and other job offers. LHL declines to tell us how his son got his job at Google and why he was appointed head of the Technology Agency. Despite the lack of information and utter lack of transparency Singaporeans can be certain of one thing at least. LHL and his wife are billionaires, not due to any brilliant innovation they developed, but solely due to their years of supposed public service and from what they inherited from his parents. So are some of his Ministers, probably. Then there is Wong’s repetition of the usual PAP lies about the partnership between NTUC and PAP being all about protecting the interests of Singaporean workers and raising their incomes. NTUC (or Never Trust a Union Chief as it should more appropriately be known) was set up specifically in the 1960s by LKY to replace and suppress the independent trade unions that had emerged under the British colonial administration. NTUC’s objective was not to raise wages and living standards but rather to keep workers under the thumbs of the PAP and businesses allied to them. Strikes were banned and many of the independent trade union leaders were detained, some for a decade or more. Singaporeans should not be fooled. NTUC has never pushed for a minimum wage or for protections on working hours or the substitution of Singaporeans by lower paid foreign workers without reservist commitments. It has not even attempted to stop or moderate the Government’s liberal policy on employment of foreign labour. Wong contrasts Singapore’s labour peace where strikes are banned and strikers jailed with French workers protesting the raising of the pension age. Yet the question Singaporean workers should ask themselves is whether keeping quiet and accepting every demand of the PAP and its trade union arm NTUC has served their economic interests well. Wong boasts without foundation that Singaporeans are better off than workers in other countries but as usual with the PAP fails to provide any facts. What we do know is that minimum wages of $17 per hour in the UK or $20 per hour in New York contrast unfavourably with the fact that many lower paid Singaporeans earn $7 per hour or less even under the PAP’s fake Progressive Wage Model. On top of that many essential goods and foodstuffs are much more expensive here. When Goh Chok Tong said that Singaporeans would soon enjoy a Swiss standard of living what he really meant was that Singaporeans would pay Swiss prices but earn Malaysian salaries! Wong claims that the PAP looks after lower income Singaporeans. It is true that the Government provides a meagre Wage Credit and Senior Employment Credit which it then counts as a subsidy or transfer. It adds up these fake subsidies, like the ones to enable you to buy an overpriced HDB flat, and proudly proclaims that Singapore provides more “subsidies” to the poor than other countries. But this is the usual PAP mendacity. Wage subsidies do not really benefit low wage workers but employers who are thus able to get labour cheaper than they would otherwise be able to. They are paid for by the taxpayer which includes average Singaporeans out of taxes like GST. Since the Government is one of the biggest employers it recoups most of the cost of the wage subsidy in being able to pay Singaporeans less. It would be far better to have a minimum wage which would be paid directly by employers. A minimum wage would also discourage the substitution of foreign workers for Singaporeans since there would be no or little cost advantage. Having wage subsidies and allowing the import of cheap labour without a minimum wage has had a damaging effect on our productivity growth since low wages disincentivize the adoption of labour saving equipment. The PAP keep quiet about their poor productivity record but it has not improved since they devoted a whole Budget (2010) to fixing the problem. We still badly lag behind the productivity of the US and many European countries even though we are just a city and comparisons should be made with New York, Paris or Tokyo. I have pointed out that the labour force participation rate for Singapore citizens appears to be much lower than that in other developed countries including the US. This is because wages for many jobs have fallen below a living wage. Wong says that the Government will be upgrading its SkillsFuture programme to provide more assistance to Singaporeans to retrain and “upskill”. While I fully support providing help for workers who have lost their jobs to retrain, much of this is an excuse from the PAP for not only their failure to protect Singaporean workers but to actively foster an economy in which their hopes of earning a living wage are undercut by desperate foreign workers from other countries prepared to put up with much lower living standards. It has always been a standard PAP tactic to keep Singaporean workers on the defensive and impose on them this fake “credentialism” by which they are made to think that they need to constantly acquire new and often worthless qualifications. Rather than anecdotal evidence Wong should produce evidence that these courses are worth it in terms of salary gains after the courses’ allegedly subsidised costs but that is something the PAP never do. Wong goes on to dissimulate further. He claims that HDB is still affordable by comparing the cost of a four room HDB in 1980 divided by median household income then with its cost now similarly divided by median income now. He says the ratio is about the same. But this is highly disingenuous. The household in 1980 would have had more dependents than a household now which would probably consist of at least three working adults rather than two then. So the only reason HDB is affordable is because there are more working adults to service the mortgage. HDB sizes have fallen meaning that Singaporeans are considerably worse off in terms of living space than they were then, particularly adults. Responsibility for the high level of prices rests solely with the Government, since as I have clearly shown pushing up land prices enables Lawrence Wong and his master LHL to siphon off more money from the Budget in fake subsidies to channel it into the reserves (see here and here). Singaporeans need to stop being taken in by this fake camaraderie and pretence that PAP millionaires and billionaires are all in the same boat with you. This Labour Day, you need to be conscious of the fact that the PAP are not your friends and looking after your welfare. They want to give you as little as they need to to induce you to vote for them and keep them in power so that they can continue milking the system that they have set up. Lawrence Wong and his master, LHL, are taking you for a ride. Rather than being fooled by these fraudulent calls for unity designed to divert you from where the money’s going, you need to start asking where are the $3 trillion in reserves and who is benefitting from their (mis)management. https://kenjeyaretnam.com/2023/05/04/lawrence-wong-stop-the-fake-camaraderie-and-humility-you-are-not-my-brother/

SINGAPORE — Despite complaints from some vendors and criticism from netizens regarding the high rental costs at the Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, the contracted organizer defends itself by saying (https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/05/organizers-defense-of-geylang-serai-bazaar-rental-costs-as-within-market-rental-rates-draw-skepticism-from-netizens/)that its stalls are “within market rental rates.” The bazaar started on 17 March and will last till 21 April. Local media previously reported that some vendors struggled with the “high bids needed to secure a space,” with rent ranging from S$16,000 to S$19,000 for one unit. Kf Seetoh, founder of Makansutra, had earlier quipped that the Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar has “easily the world’s most expensive pasar malam stalls”. All food and beverage stallholders are also subject to incidental costs of between S$30 and S$3,100, including utilities, water supply, fans, coolers, tables, and chairs. The organiser said that they have incurred additional costs to “enhance visitors’ experience by curating concept zones” and setting up over 1,000 dining seats and tables at the bazaar. Additionally, they “increased security measures” by deploying more auxiliary police officers, closed-circuit televisions, and concrete blocks. The bazaar is jointly organized by a consortium of S-Lite Event Support, TLK Trade Fair and Events, and Enniche Global Trading. A spokesperson from Enniche Global Trading said, “It starts from top down. It begins with the tender value. What the tender value turns out to be will determine distributed costs.” The main organiser of the bazaar is actually the People’s Association (PA), and it tendered out the organisation of the bazaar to the consortium via a GeBiz tender at an award value of S$2.26 million. The total cost came up to nearly S$2.5 million, the organiser said. Stallholders regret participating Despite the assurance of the organizer, CNA interviewed (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/geylang-serai-ramadan-bazaar-high-rent-stiff-competition-stallholders-3398921)some stallholders and published their response on Thursday (6 Apr). Kebab seller Mr Hasan told CNA that he regrets taking up a stall at the bazaar. Pointing to the stalls next to his, he said, “We’re all losing money. (We) cannot cover costs, cannot even cover rent.” Over at the neighbouring stall selling Ramly burgers, a worker echoed the same sentiment, “We regret taking it this year.” He said that it was okay in the previous years. Mr Hasan is paying S$25,000 in rent, while his neighbour is paying S$20,000. Mr Muhd Ridzuan, who runs a stall selling burgers and fried snacks, said that at the 2019 bazaar, he saw snaking queues unlike this year. Another kebab seller, Mr Essam Ezz, estimated that 85 per cent of his earnings will go towards paying rent. He is paying about S$30,000 – three times what he would pay at other night markets, he said. Mdm Nisha Samsudeen of a fried snacks stall said her family paid S$16,000 in rent and was not sure if they could turn a profit. “Maybe we can pay for supplies, workers and rent, but (my family) may not draw a salary,” she said. The Straits Times also reported (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/consumer/sky-high-rents-cut-throat-competition-at-first-geylang-serai-ramadan-bazaar-since-2019)how the owner of the Pasha Turkish Kebab stall owner at the Bazaar said he was promised exclusivity to run a stall in the tent next to Onan Road if he paid $24,000. However, another kebab shop has popped up less than 50m from his stall. Prices for kebabs at both stalls start from S$5. The other kebab seller in the tent, The Botak BBQ & Grill, was also quoted a rental of $24,000 and told verbally that there would be no other competitor there. Other stalls selling the same items told ST that they were not informed that they could not sell their food, but had been threatened by the organizers not to do so. Since the agreement did not have any such conditions, they continued selling the items. Nearly 30 per cent of the 700 stalls at the bazaar were earlier reported to be empty this year. However, Wisma Geylang Serai later said that the take-up rate was 95 per cent for food and beverage booths, and 80 per cent for retail stalls. According to the tender document from PA, the total number of live-cooked food stalls that require permits from the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), e.g. Burger Ramlee, Kebab, shall not exceed 150 stalls. There is, however, no restriction on the number of non-live cooked food stalls. On top of the competition between stalls selling similar food, it was also reported that many other Ramadan bazaars are happening across Singapore and traffic is diluted due to this. Two stallholders interviewed by CNA, however, said that the bazaar is going well for them. They attributed it to their marketing efforts. They said they use social media to promote their stalls. MP Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, the grassroots adviser at Geylang Serai, wrote in an Instagram post saying that more than 2 million visitors have visited the bazaar. “We are already on set to be on record of having the largest number of people coming to a Ramadan bazaar in Singapore,” said Assoc Prof Faishal, who is also Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/07/stallholders-regret-taking-up-stalls-at-geylang-serai-ramadan-bazaar-due-to-high-rent-low-traffic-and-heavy-competition/ (https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/07/stallholders-regret-taking-up-stalls-at-geylang-serai-ramadan-bazaar-due-to-high-rent-low-traffic-and-heavy-competition/)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 31 (Reuters) - Malaysia's top court on Friday dismissed a bid by jailed former prime minister Najib Razak to review his corruption conviction over the multi-billion dollar scandal at state fund 1MDB, ending Najib's judicial efforts to challenge the guilty verdict. Najib became the first Malaysian premier to be imprisoned after Malaysia's Federal Court upheld a guilty verdict and 12-year prison sentence handed down to him by a lower court. Najib, 69, can no longer challenge the conviction in court, but he has applied for a royal pardon which if successful could see him released without serving the full 12-year term. Federal Court Judge Vernon Ong said a five-member panel voted 4-1 to dismiss Najib's application to review the conviction. There was no miscarriage of justice in the top court's decision last year, he said, adding that a review was granted only in "very limited and exceptional circumstances". "In the final analysis, and having regard to all circumstances, we are constrained to say that the applicant (Najib) was the author of his own misfortunes," Ong said. Najib's lawyer Shafee Abdullah said there was a possibility of another action in court due to the dissenting view of one judge. "As a result of the minority judgement, there is an avenue that is open," Shafee told reporters. He declined to say what action his client would pursue. U.S. and Malaysian investigators have said some $4.5 billion was stolen from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) - co-founded by Najib during his first year as prime minister in 2009 - and that more than $1 billion went to accounts linked to Najib. Various recipients of the siphoned 1MDB funds used the money to buy luxury assets and real estate, a Picasso painting, a private jet, a superyacht, hotels, jewellery, and to finance the 2013 Hollywood film "The Wolf of Wall Street", investigators have said. Najib suppressed Malaysian investigations of the wide-ranging 1MDB scandal during his leadership even as global probes continued, but was charged after he lost a general election in 2018. The British-educated son of Malay nobility held the premiership from 2009 to 2018, when public anger over the graft scandal brought election defeat. He was found guilty by a high court in 2020 of criminal breach of trust, abuse of power and money laundering for illegally receiving about $10 million from SRC International, a former unit of 1MDB. He lost all his appeals. Najib faces three other trials related to graft at 1MDB and other government agencies. The former premier has consistently pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/jailed-malaysian-ex-pm-najib-loses-bid-review-graft-conviction-2023-03-31/

Adani Group Shares Slide After Hindenburg Alleges ‘Largest Con In Corporate History’ Shares of India’s Adani Group companies slid sharply on Wednesday morning after activist investment firm Hindenburg Research disclosed a short position against the conglomerate, while accusing the companies owned by the world’s third richest person, Gautam Adani, of fraud. KEY FACTS​ • In a report disclosing its short position, Hindenburg alleged that Adani Group companies—owned by Asia’s richest man—had “engaged in a brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.” • Shares in Adani Enterprises, Adani Group’s flagship company, were down more than 3% to Rs 3,333 ($40.77) Wednesday afternoon while Adani ports slumped by more than 6.5% to Rs 711. • Other Adani Group listed companies also fared poorly, with food company Adani Wilmar’s stock dropping nearly 5%, Adani Power 4.7%, Adani Transmission 5.19%, Adani Total Gas 4.77% and Adani Green Energy 3.55%. • Shares of Indian news broadcaster New Delhi Television (NDTV)—which was recently acquired by Adani in a hostile takeover—were also down 5%, while cement companies Ambuja and ACC, which were also recently acquired by Adani, fell 8% and 6.6% respectively. • Hindenburg says it has taken its short positions “through U.S.-traded bonds and non-Indian-traded derivative instruments.” • The timing of the disclosure is likely a major blow for the conglomerate as its flagship firm Adani Enterprises is set to carry out a Rs 200 billion (USD 2.45 billion) follow-on public offering on Friday. CRUCIAL QUOTE​ In a statement shared with Forbes, Adani Group CFO Jugeshinder Singh dismissed Hindenburg’s report, saying it is “a malicious combination of selective misinformation and stale, baseless and discredited allegations that have been tested and rejected by India’s highest courts.” The statement adds that the company was never contacted by Hindenburg and criticizes the timing of the report’s publication, saying it “clearly betrays a brazen, mala fide intention to undermine the Adani Group’s reputation with the principal objective of damaging the upcoming Follow-on Public Offering from Adani Enterprises.” FORBES VALUATION​ Wednesday’s selloff, after Hindenburg’s revelation, has led to a 5% or $6.4 billion drop in Gautam Adani’s fortune. According to our estimates, Adani’s net worth now stands at $120 billion, making him the world’s third richest person. If the selloff continues, Adani could cede third place to Jeff Bezos whose net worth we estimate to be $119.5 billion. NEWS PEG​ In its report, Hindenburg makes multiple serious allegations against the Adani family and their group of companies, including the purported use of offshore shell entities and stock manipulation. Hindenburg says it has identified 38 alleged shell companies based in Mauritius “controlled by” Vinod Adani, Gautam Adani’s older brother, along with several other similar firms based in Cyprus, the UAE, Singapore, and several Caribbean Islands. The report alleges the shell companies are used for “stock manipulation” and “laundering money,” using Adani Group’s private companies, onto the books of listed firms “in order to maintain the appearance of financial health and solvency.” The report is also critical of “investors, journalists, citizens and even politicians,” saying they have not spoken up about the “large, flagrant fraud [taking place] in broad daylight” because of a fear of reprisal. As of Wednesday afternoon, the Hindenburg report has seen sparse coverage in Indian media outside of syndicated reports from business news wires like Reuters or Bloomberg. KEY BACKGROUND​ Hindenburg research gained prominence back in 2020 when one of its reports helped bring down Trevor Milton, the founder of the electric truck company Nikola. In its report, Hindenburg accused Nikola of being “an intricate fraud built on dozens of lies” and said Milton was responsible for most of it. The company founder stepped down and was later found guilty of criminal and securities fraud. Hindenburg has also taken on Clover Health and electric vehicle maker Lordstown Motors. In July last year, Hindenburg disclosed a long position on Twitter, betting on the fact that Elon Musk’s planned $44 billion acquisition of the social media company would go through despite efforts by the billionaire to back out of the deal. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/01/25/adani-group-shares-slide-after-hindenburg-alleges-largest-con-in-corporate-history/

SINGAPORE — Leading opposition party, Workers’ Party, has filed 16 Parliamentary Questions for the upcoming Parliament sitting over two controversial issues that have popped up over the past month. The first issue is the decision by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to issue stern warnings to six former executives of the Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited (KOM) in lieu of prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offences relate to bribe payments to officials of Petrobras, pertaining to rigs-building contracts which Petrobras and/or its related companies had awarded to KOM, which were said to span over more than a decade. While CPIB states that the matter is “complex and transnational”, involving multiple authorities and witnesses from several countries. Many have pointed out that KOM had already pleaded guilty to the offences in a plea agreement with the United States Department of Justice (DoJ). Furthermore, one of the six was a DoJ’s prosecution witness who had testified against the other five. Former Singtel CEO and former Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), Lee Hsien Yang, commented that the decision not to prosecute will “cause more damage” to Singapore’s reputation than the reprehensible acts that were perpetrated and that it “stands in stark contrast” to Singapore’s widely touted policy of zero tolerance to corruption. The second issue is the sacking or punishing of staff from SPH Media Trust (SMT) for the misrepresentation of circulation figures of its publications. It was first reported by Wake Up Singapore (WUSG) on 8 January that several senior executives were either sacked or disciplined after an internal review discovered lapses in the reporting of circulation figures. A day following WUSG’s report, SPH Media admitted to the matter via a report in the Straits Times but has not issued any public statement on it to date. SMT’s CEO was said to have told staff to “let the matter rest” during a town hall meeting over the actions taken against the staff involved in the misrepresentation of circulation figures. No response has been received from SPH Media in regard to the clarification sought over this matter. SMT’s chairman and former People’s Action Party minister, Khaw Boon Wan, has kept quiet on the scandal. Public outcry over the lack of transparency and accountability in this scandal is centred around the fact that SMT is not just a private enterprise but an entity that is funded by the Singapore government up to S$180 million a year for a period of five years or S$900 million in total. So far, no public statements by the ministries have been issued over the two issues. The next Parliament sitting has been scheduled to commence at 12 pm on 6 February 2023. Below is the full list of Parliamentary Questions the WP MPs have filed. Topics Related to Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited 1) Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: To ask the Prime Minister (a) how did the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau arrive at the decision to issue stern warnings to the six former management staff of Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited (KOM) given the size of the bribes given to officials from the Brazilian state-owned corporation Petroleo Brasileiro SA which amounted to S$73 million and the size of the fine KOM paid which amounted to US$422 million; and (b) whether a detailed account of the facts behind the bribes payment can be provided. 2) Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: To ask the Prime Minister whether it is in the public interest to disclose the names of the six former management staff of Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited (KOM) who were given stern warnings for their roles in the giving of S$73 million bribes to officials from the Brazilian state-owned corporation Petroleo Brasileiro SA, notwithstanding the practice of not disclosing the names of persons who have been given stern warnings. 3) Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister why the statement of facts contained in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement concluded between Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited with the United States Department of Justice dated 22 December 2017 is not considered sufficient, available, and appropriate evidence of the six former senior management staff’s culpability for them to be charged with corruption in Singapore. 4) Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister since the conclusion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement between Keppel Offshore and Marine limited and the United States Department of Justice in December 2017 (a) how many times has CPIB reached out to witnesses overseas or sought to obtain documents located overseas; (b) when did these actions take place; and (c) what have the responses of the overseas witnesses or organisations been when contacted. 5) Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister (a) why is CPIB not naming the six former senior management staff of Keppel Offshore and Marine limited who have been issued stern warnings in lieu of prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act; and (b) whether their ages and nationalities can be revealed. 6) Ms He Ting Ru: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs in each of the last five years (a) whether the Ministry has records of how many Singapore companies have been (i) investigated and (ii) found guilty of offences under foreign legislation such as the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act or other equivalents; and (b) if so, what is the breakdown for such figures. 7) Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: To ask the Prime Minister based on investigations into the Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited corruption case conducted by CPIB (a) what are the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (PCA) that were considered for prosecution for the six individuals; and (b) what is the maximum penalty for these offences under the PCA. 8) Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: To ask the Prime Minister in deciding against prosecuting the six individuals involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited corruption case (a) what weightage has been given to the various relevant factors such as the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances; and (b) whether this is consistent with the Government’s political commitment and leadership and a culture of zero tolerance against corruption. 9) Mr Leon Perera: To ask the Prime Minister (a) whether the decision not to prosecute the six individuals who are involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited corruption case in Brazil represents a departure from the Government’s stated stance of zero tolerance towards corruption; and (b) whether the said decision will have an impact on deterring Singaporeans at home or abroad from committing corrupt acts in a manner that makes prosecution similarly difficult. 10) Mr Leon Perera: To ask the Prime Minister how will the decision not to prosecute the six individuals who were involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited corruption case in Brazil likely to affect the reputation of Singapore and Singaporean companies for having a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption. Topics relating to SPH falsification of circulation data 1) Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry will require SPH Media Trust (SMT) to disclose (i) the reasons why the inconsistencies in the daily circulation numbers of SPH Media’s publications took a long time to be discovered and made public and (ii) what is being done to strengthen governance over such matters; and (b) how will these inconsistencies impact the Government’s commitment to fund SMT. 2) Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the total number of newspaper copies that were printed, counted and destroyed by SPH Media or its predecessor company for the entire duration of the scheme to inflate circulation numbers; (b) what is the estimated total weight of paper used; and (c) what is the environmental impact of these actions. 3) Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the Ministry’s review of SPH Media following their admission of falsification of circulation data (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when did this review begin and when will it be completed; (c) what have the findings been so far; (d) whether the report will be made public; and (e) what are the conditions under which public funding to SPH Media will be removed or reduced. 4) Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what was the source of the figures cited on 10 May 2021 in Parliament that SPH’s newspapers’ circulation had grown by 5% and The Straits Times’ circulation had grown by 20% from 2017 to 2020; (b) how much bearing did this data have on the Government’s decision to fund SPH Media; and (c) whether the Minister still considers this data reliable in light of recent admissions by SPH Media. 5) Ms He Ting Ru: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether individuals involved in initiating and perpetuating the inflated circulation figures in SPH Media Trust have been referred to the police for further investigation; and (b) if so, how many have been referred to the police for further investigation. 6) Ms He Ting Ru: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what actions will be taken against SPH Media Trust (SMT) to hold it accountable for the inconsistencies in the reported daily circulation data; and (b) whether there will be a review to the Government’s previous announcement that it will fund SMT and provide up to $900 million in funding support over the next five years. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/01/20/workers-party-mps-file-parliamentary-questions-surrounding-keppel-offshore-and-marine-and-sph-media-trust

SINGAPORE — Senior Minister of State for National Development Sim Ann posted on her Facebook page on Sunday (11 Dec) rebutting Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Leong Mun Wai, who recently made a social media post with regards to the pricing of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats by the Housing Development Board (HDB). Ms Sim said Mr Leong continues to question if the HDB subsidies are sufficient to make BTOs affordable. “Essentially, Mr Leong wants the Government to price BTOs much lower, disregarding land costs if necessary,” she said. Ms Sim assured everyone that the government has kept BTOs affordable for Singaporeans and will continue to do so. She said that for most Singaporeans, the home price to annual income (HPI) ratio is only about 4 to 5 times. “In comparison, in global cities HPIs range from 8 times to well over 20 times,” she said. Ms Sim said that the government has been increasing subsidies and grants where necessary to keep BTO prices affordable to Singaporeans. “This is clear from the relatively stable prices of BTO flats – the average price of a 4-Room BTO flat in non-mature estates was S$341,000 in 2019 and S$348,000 in 2022 – despite the Resale Price Index rising much faster by 28% over this period,” she pointed out. It is true that under the Enhanced Housing Grant (EHG) scheme, Singaporean families can enjoy up to S$80,000 of grant subsidies. However, the amount of subsidies granted will depend on the applicant’s household income. For example, the government won’t give any EHG subsidies to families whose household income is more than S$9,000 (household income ceiling for buying HDB flats is S$14,000). And based on the figures from the Department of Statistics, the median monthly household income among the resident-employed households in Singapore was S$9,520 in 2021. That is to say, on average, most middle-income families will be getting little or no EHG grants for buying BTO flats. “Seriously unaffordable” According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey 2022 published by the Urban Reform Institute and Frontier Centre for Public Policy, any housing price-to-income ratio of more than three is considered unaffordable. The Urban Reform Institute is a think tank based in the US focusing on the study of cities as generators of upward mobility. At the same time, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent Canadian public policy think tank whose mission is to explore options for the future by undertaking research and education that supports economic growth and opportunities. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey rates middle-income housing affordability using the “Median Multiple”, which is the median housing price divided by the median household income. The Median Multiple is widely used for evaluating housing markets and has been recommended as an affordability indicator by the World Bank and the United Nations. In particular, the survey also ranked Singapore 53rd in terms of affordability out of 92 markets. In any case, based on the home price to annual income ratio of 4 to 5 times, as disclosed by Ms Sim, as well as Demographia’s affordability recommendation, Singapore’s BTO flats are considered “seriously unaffordable”. And using the average prices of S$341,000 in 2019 and S$348,000 in 2022 of a 4-Room BTO flat, also disclosed by Ms Sim, and assuming their home price to annual income ratio is, on average, 4.5 (taking the middle of 4 and 5), the 4-Room BTO flat should then be priced at S$227,333 and S$232,000 respectively in order to meet the minimum affordability ratio of 3. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2022/12/15/sim-ann-says-bto-flats-affordable-but-they-are-seriously-unaffordable-by-international-standard/

Famed for sex and violence, Orchard Towers is one of the spiciest parts of Singapore. It's even more surprising that it's located in the very heart of Orchard Road; and it begs the question: Would you put up with the seedy bits, to live in such a prime area? This week we asked A, who once resided in the (in)famous Orchard Towers: The appeal of Orchard Towers If you can ignore the sleaze and reputation, Orchard Towers has some strong points going for it. A, for instance, lived in a massive 3,789 sq ft penthouse unit in Orchard Towers – a size that is almost unheard of among newer residential projects today. A says that the locale at Orchard Towers is also an attractive one, even though he has since moved to Queenstown. He says that Orchard Towers did offer a lot more convenience, even if Queenstown is a lot more peaceful. "For food, there was the food court in the commercial block opposite, and some standalone eateries like Isle House that serves delicious local fare," he says, "As well as an Indian restaurant where I can get a quick teh peng from. "There are some really good eateries on the upper floors too, such as the famous Thai restaurant. Sometimes, I'll head over to Forum to take out McDonalds, and I also really like the ramen at Uma Uma Ramen. There's also a revamped Starbucks at Delfi Orchard to chill in. "Right next door, there's Claymore Connect, a local mall that houses a California Pizza Kitchen among other F&Bs, and now it has a really decent Cold Storage with a salad bar." *California Pizza has now been replaced with a Japanese restaurant. As for retail, we probably don't need to explain this location is as good as it gets – for A, the "neighbourhood mall" was nothing less than the ritzy ION Orchard. An interesting point raised by A is that, while Orchard Towers is in the heart of the concrete jungle, it still has its unique outdoor appeal. He notes that going for a late-night run along Orchard Road is surprisingly nice, when the malls are closed and the crowds have vanished. It's certainly not an experience many have had (and we imagine it's especially nice with Christmas lights). That said, A also reminds us that Orchard Towers is a pure apartment complex, not a condo. That means no common facilities like pools, gyms, etc. Even the car park isn't included. How visible is the vice at Orchard Towers? A says that the vice is contained in the building itself; you won't see any spillover even in immediate neighbouring buildings, like Palais Renaissance, Forum, or Delfi Orchard. The area where the vice is visible would be the front of Orchard Tower's commercial segment (the residential component is located further back). A says that: "At the front of the commercial blocks, you'll see women standing around, and some people smoking (there's now a designated smoking zone next to the taxi stand). "The vice is also limited up to the zebra crossing between both blocks. Once you enter the residential block, there really isn't much shady stuff going on there. There's a hardware shop on the right, and a bar on the left…but there are no vice activities going on as far as I can see. "When I was there, there was a Guardian and a Jasons supermarket, though they've been gone for a while now (interestingly, the Jasons supermarket is replaced by a classy French restaurant, but you can only enter via the back of the residential block). "I can really appreciate the good work of the security guards at Orchard Towers. They always ensure that suspicious people do not enter the residential lift lobby, which does require card access – not just for the entrance, but to even activate the lift." A also points out the residential component has been renamed, to protect its image. It is now known as One Claymore instead of Orchard Towers (as its address is 1 Claymore Drive). However, A opines that they should remove the neon nightclub signage on the front of the residential block, to help with the overhaul. There are also ways for residents to avoid the vice spots if they don't feel comfortable walking through them. "The fastest path home from the MRT is to walk past the Thai Embassy, so you would have to cut through the commercial block to get back," A says, "You could also walk through Palais Renaissance, or take the walkway between Palais Renaissance and the Thai Embassy instead of the commercial block which is less crowded. If you really want to avoid any element of the crowd, you'd have to go through Claymore Road on the north side of the residential block, then take the back entrance. It's a much longer journey though, and an uphill one at that; so it's not worth bypassing the commercial block area altogether." The vice crowds may be less troubling if you're a guy "I've read an article in the Straits Times about how someone didn't wish to visit their mother staying at Orchard Towers because they don't like being solicited for business by women there," A says. "Never happened to me, and I am a guy – if you're looking straight and uninterested, the women there generally wouldn't bother with you. So, unless you're a Caucasian (because you're likely a tourist), smiling at them, or dressed in work attire with a flustered face and looking interested, you're pretty much left alone. I can't say the same if you're female though, my mother mentioned being hugged randomly once by a stranger." The appearance is worst in the early mornings and evenings when the vice starts A says that before the pandemic in the early mornings – before 8am – Orchard Towers "looks like it had a hangover". You may see some people lying on the steps, or wandering about in a daze. Between 8am and 6pm, Orchard Towers looks like any older strata title mall. However, even then, the vice trade doesn't fully stop – during the day, there are still sleazy massage shops that are open, and some of the workers do solicit. It's around 6pm or after, however, before the vice activities spill out to the front of the commercial block, and the pubs roar to life. A says that Orchard Towers is "definitely noisier" at night: "In the commercial block, certain bars have loud bass playing which adds a lot of life to the area. People are seen touting visitors into the bars (women in particular stand at the escalators to talk you into a bar establishment). "There are a lot of tourists that come visit too, so they're just walking around, visiting the bars for a drink or there to partake in said vice activities (usually it's a mixture). It's very lively but not unwelcoming at all." More at https://www.asiaone.com/lifestyle/ex-orchard-towers-resident-shares-what-its-really-live-shady-part-town

If there is one industry that should know everything about protecting their employees and customers from dangerous viruses, it would definitely be porn. Enter Soft On Demand, or SOD, a Japanese group of adult video companies that you might remember from earlier this year when they made hundreds of their X-rated titles available for free to help people get through the Covid pandemic. This October, they opened SOD Land, a multistory “adult theme park” staffed with a rotating roster of (fully dressed) adult film actresses who have appeared in SOD productions. This way, guests can get close and personal with the people they’ve met up until now on their computers or smartphones. It’s a genius idea but what’s equally impressive are all the steps that SOD has taken to make SOD Land a safe, coronavirus-free environment. Fully protected Located in the Tokyo red-light district of Kabukicho, SOD Land is made up of six floors, starting with the reception area where the staff will explain the rules of the establishment. You can also kick off your visit here with some souvenir photos of yourself with genuine porn actresses. The reception also sells the SOD BASARA THE CUP AIR FIT, which are masturbatory aids disguised as plastic bottles. Before you can proceed up the stairs to the next floor, you’ll first have to face “Sense Thunder.” It’s an AI thermo camera that measures the guests’ temperatures and can even detect if they’re wearing a mask. Next, you’re going to take a shower. To enter the establishment properly, you’ll have to pass through the “Three of Defence,” a vertical system that sprays you from top to bottom with disinfectant. Don’t worry, it’s nonalcoholic, so if someone catches you exiting the porn theme park, they won’t think less of you because you smell like booze. The Chat Room The “Fuzoku Kenkyujo Kakubutsu Salon” takes up the second floor. Fuzoku is a Japanese umbrella term for the sex industry, including everything from escorting to some hostess bars and erotic massage parlors. The salon is where you can drink and talk with people working in the fuzoku industry. Talk about what? You name it. These are people to whom sex is work so ask them sex-related questions that’s always been on your mind. Talk to them about fetishes. Ask them for recommendations of massage parlors. The salon does resemble an elegant salon, although the staff here don’t lounge around on davenports. Instead, they are located at their own circular table stations, safe inside plastic cylinders to help curb the spread of viruses. It also makes them look a bit as if they were stuck in test tubes, which someone must be into. The guests sitting around the salon staff are also separated by plastic screens, just like at the third-floor SOD “Syain Bar Kabukicho,” which is staffed with porn actresses from SOD movies. You will see a lot of plastic at this establishment. Even the little toy megaphones that the staff use to play around with the guests now have plastic wraps all over them. These precautions may seem like much at first glance but they not only help the guests socially distance and stay healthy, they also offer a level of protection for the staff, making them feel safer. They’ll still gladly drink with you, only you will have to toast through the plastic screens. But that’s not all. SOD Land also uses a Lafuado Filter in its ventilation system and a device that uses UV light to kill all viruses. This is necessary because SOD Land is essentially a bar that serves food, so safety has to be their primary concern. The fourth-floor “Silent Bar” takes it one step beyond plastic screens by having their bikini staff stay inside a cage of two-way mirrors so that you can see them but they can’t see you. Also, true to the name, there is no talking in the Silent Bar. You only communicate with signs. Suggestive drawings might also be acceptable as long as you don’t overdo it. Now might not be the best time to go out to bars, but if you do, you probably would like to see the same kind of precautions that you’ll find at SOD Land. Whether that’s enough to put you at ease or not is ultimately up to you. https://www.tokyoweekender.com/2020/12/sod-land-japan-new-porn-actress-theme-park-shinjuku-safety/

In the pocket of Melbourne’s CBD around RMIT, where a smack in the mouth after a skinful at the Oxford would once have been a more common prospect, you can now buy authentic Xing Fu Tang “boba” bubble tea just like in Taipei. Busy Singapore-style kopitiams have sprouted up and young mainland Chinese, in a triumph of cash over culture, are running sushi trains. With its influx of foreign students, this one-time urban wasteland — like its counterparts in other Australian cities — projects something of the dynamism of downtown Seoul or Kuala Lumpur. Few of those foreign students spend more liberally than the 6000-odd Singaporeans who study in Australia each year, arriving from one of Asia’s wealthiest nations. In splashing their cash, they’ve contributed to the $40 billion bounty enjoyed by Australian colleges and universities in return for educating some of Asia’s brightest. Curiously, these Singaporeans are unlikely to have been such good earners for Optus, the Australian telco they ultimately part-own. Like citizens and taxpayers back home, they help buttress the state-owned corporate colossus known as “Singapore Inc.,” which owns Singtel, Singapore’s dominant telco and Optus’s parent. No, they haven’t suddenly joined Australia’s horror at Optus’s mishandling of its customers’ intimate information: the company appears to have been cancelled by Singaporeans long before embattled chief executive Kelly Bayer Rosmarin became a household name. These Singaporeans come to Australia knowing their leaders back home in Singapore are champion snoopers and might like to keep an eye on them even when they go abroad. For many Singaporeans, studying in Australia gives access to the intellectual liberties fundamental to our centres of learning: open debate, pluralism, privacy, an untrammelled internet and freedom of speech, some of the stuff Singaporeans don’t get profound experience of back home. With its Singapore Inc. ownership, though, Optus’s reach creates a Hotel California for some Singaporeans. They might be able to check out of the island state any time they like, but if they choose Optus for their digital needs they may never really leave official Singapore’s reach. There’s never been any evidence of Optus snooping for Singapore, but its critics take no chances, choosing anyone-but-Optus for their SIM cards in case the tentacles of the regime catch them doing, saying, reading or studying something self-preservation dictates they don’t risk back home. Surveillance has helped keep Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party in uninterrupted power for sixty-three years, and being monitored is presumed a part of daily life in the highly wired city-state. Singaporeans have normalised this intrusion, assuming their autocratic government tracks their movements, their contacts and calls simply because it can, in a circular system that advances efficiency and suppresses dissent because it sees dissent coming. This widespread belief gives rise to a curious tic common to many Singaporeans, which I came to call the Singapore Swivel when I was based there as a foreign correspondent through the 2000s. It occurs when small talk advances to an opinion and the interlocutor whispers “off the record” as his or her head pivots left-to-right-to-centre, scanning to see who’s in earshot. Singaporean authorities don’t mind their citizens thinking they are monitoring them, even as they strenuously deny it happens; it’s all part of the machinery. One memorable TV ad promoting Singapore’s navy even showed a submarine crew busily going about tasks onboard before raising the periscope to monitor Singaporeans on land going about theirs. Control is everything, and Singapore is so skilled at it that snooping has turned into a good little earner for Singapore Inc., generating millions from the sale of surveillance expertise, equipment and systems to despotic regimes like Myanmar’s military junta. But sometimes controllers slip up and get exposed, like when Singtel and Singapore’s home ministry were discovered sifting through the computers of 200,000 SingNet subscribers, their clumsy intrusion detected by a subscriber operating basic anti-hacker software. Investigators of the Optus leak might wish to note Singtel-Optus’s argument with Canberra about how sophisticated — or not — that breach was. Singapore’s snooping instinct also extends to surveilling its own citizens abroad. One of the world’s leading authorities on Singapore, Australian academic Garry Rodan, knows this concern all too well. “If I was a Singaporean critic of the PAP who was an international student in Australia, and I’ve met quite a few of them over the years, then taking out an Optus account would not have been a natural choice,” he told me last week. “Many students probably headed straight for Telstra or someone else because, even before the advent of sophisticated media and surveillance, these students suspected plants in tutorials reporting to offices and agencies about their criticisms of the Singapore government whilst in Australia. Against this background, signing up with Optus was perceived by some as potentially amplifying the risk of surveillance.” For years, Singapore’s behaviour in Australia was an open secret that didn’t much stir anyone except its targets. Singaporeans might wonder who ratted on them if they get pulled aside for “random” drug testing upon returning home. But when Singapore’s snooping gets too egregious, Canberra quietly tells it to cut it out. Diplomatically, it does so also knowing that Singapore’s patriarchal philosopher-king Lee Kuan Yew was Australia’s most reliable friend in an often-peevish region dominated by corrupt Suhartos, recalcitrant Mahathirs and their wobbly successors. Singapore is hardly a democracy (only the ruling parties of China, North Korea and Cuba have been in power longer than the Lees’ People’s Action Party) but it doesn’t kill its own dissidents like China, Burma and Thailand have. A pivotal ASEAN member, it didn’t arc up at Australia’s intervention in East Timor after 1999 either, risking its own interests in a resentful Indonesia. And though a red-for-Chinese dot in a green-for-Islam archipelago, nor did it wobble after 9/11 and Bali in the war on terror. Yes, the nannyish PAP runs what is effectively a one-party state with a carefully cultivated facade of democracy (traceable ballots anyone?) and a separate legal system, but it has been a benevolent dictatorship in the main, even as its leaders sue domestic critics and opponents into oblivion. And, besides, there’s the food, the hotels and the shopping that makes oh-so-clean Singapore such an easy, cordial place to visit. How can it possibly be sinister? Singapore Inc. — the expression of Singapore’s state-as-corporation governance model — centres on two state-owned enterprises, Temasek Holdings and the Government Investment Corporation, or GIC. Since 1959, the island has been a Lee family fiefdom, led for decades by Lee Kuan Yew himself and, since 2004, by his eldest son Lee Hsien Loong. During its decades in power, the PAP has largely delivered for Singapore, economically at least. With no natural resources apart from an energetic population and its strategic location where the Indian and Pacific oceans meet, this tiny island is hailed internationally as a swamp-through-semiconductor-to-skyscraper success. LKY, who died in 2015, was much admired internationally, and his leadership model imitated by authoritarian regimes around the world. It’s evident in Putin’s Russia, Modi’s India, Xi’s China, Duterte’s and now Marcos Jnr’s Philippines, across Africa and among the central Asian ’stans, among the many who’ve beaten a path to Singapore for tips. The Lee model has many Western admirers, too, particularly among chief executives of the Fortune Global 500. Britain’s apprentice prime minister Liz Truss has her own low-tax Singapore-on-Thames aspirations, though they became more like Harare-on-Thames on delivery in late September. The Singapore model holds that a citizenry is best served by an appointed elite in charge of a smooth-running corporate state, and that sustained economic success can be achieved without meaningful political liberalisation. Democracy doesn’t feature much. If that elite happens to include members of the ruling family then so be it; Singapore Inc.’s boosters insist it’s a meritocracy, and will threaten legal action against anyone who says otherwise. By that measure, current PM Lee Hsien Loong’s wife Ho Ching — who ran Temasek for almost twenty years and one of its major offshoots, the arms-maker Singapore Technologies, for five years before that — was clearly the best person for both those jobs. Just as Hsien Loong’s brother Hsien Yang was the right man to run Singtel for twelve years — he presided over the Optus deal in 2001 — before he fell out with his PM brother and became a dissident of sorts. And obviously, PM Lee himself is the best person to also chair the GIC, the world’s third-largest sovereign wealth fund with more than $25 billion invested in Australian shares, infrastructure and property alone, just as his father was before him. Profits are maximised, and dissent minimised, if trusted aides run things without their rule being challenged or even questioned. When Singapore Inc. spinners insist their empire is run according to world’s best practice, Singaporeans are obliged to believe that, and the markets are too. No matter that GIC director and Singapore Inc. lion Koh Boon Hwee once sat on forty-seven boards, including the state governance outfit that made recommendations about how many boards people like him should be allowed to sit on. Singaporeans get little chance to decide or even debate who will manage their national nest eggs, or how, or call them to account if required. But don’t suggest Singapore Inc. is nepotistic or cronified, or that the country’s politics and business are interconnected or dynastic, lest it draw a libel lawsuit that history suggests, if it’s tried in Singapore, the defendant is sure to lose. A dependable legal system is another cornerstone of Singapore Inc. When I reported from Singapore, an anonymous samizdat document would often be exchanged among diplomats, correspondents, academics and the tiny band of locals who would bravely question how the national finances were being managed. Entitled “Why It Might Be Difficult for the Government to Withdraw from Business,” it listed the hundreds of senior posts in Singapore Inc. enterprises held by members of the ruling family, by current and former government officials, by members of parliament, and by past and present military commanders. Well-researched and cross-referenced, it became a handbook of Singapore Inc. That who’s who of the island state’s corporate elite might inform the Australian regulators probing Optus that Singapore Inc.’s clubbishness is evident at Optus’ parent Singtel too, where members can’t help but bump into each other. Singtel’s chairman is local lawyer Lee Theng Kiat, a long-time colleague of Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong’s wife Ho Ching at another Temasek offshoot, Singapore Technologies. Lee Theng Kiat is also a director at Temasek, which owns Singtel and Optus. The lead “independent” director on Singtel’s board is Gautam Banerjee, investment giant Blackstone’s chairman in Singapore. Banerjee also sits on Singtel’s risk committee, the one with the Optus headache. Blackstone is 4 per cent owned by Temasek, and the two companies co-own and run a $1 billion investment fund. Like Koh Boon Hwee, who was chairman of Singtel when it did the Optus deal, Banerjee is a director of the GIC sovereign fund that’s chaired by Singapore’s PM Lee, whose wife now chairs the Temasek Trust. A fellow director of Lee and Banerjee and Koh’s on the GIC’s board is Loh Boon Chye, the chief executive of SGX, Singapore’s stock exchange. Koh is also on the SGX board, and will become chairman in January. SGX’s major shareholder is — you guessed it — Temasek, along with Banerjee’s Blackstone. Singtel is the SGX’s second-biggest listed company after another Temasek satellite, DBS, one of Asia’s biggest banks, chaired by Peter Seah Lim Huat. Seah is a former chairman of Temasek-controlled Singapore Technologies, which PM Lee’s wife Ho Ching also chaired. And Seah is yet another director of the GIC’s state sovereign fund with Koh, Banerjee and Loh, with PM Lee serving as chair. Conflicts of interest? Nothing to see here. Singtel’s Optus deal in 2001 attracted much concern. Critics feared an authoritarian foreign regime was buying a strategic Australian communication asset that had defence contracts. Seven Network owner Kerry Stokes said then that if Canberra’s Foreign Investment Review Board allowed the deal, it would demonstrate a “naive approach to national security.” Australia’s communications minister of the day, Richard Alston, was disquieted about the role the Singaporean government might play in managing Optus. Ross Babbage, a former defence secretary and now an international security consultant, articulated the view of many in Australian defence circles concerned about Singapore’s “congenital” inclination to secretly collect and pass on information. But Coalition treasurer Peter Costello’s FIRB jogged on. Costello had turned down Royal Dutch Shell’s bid for Woodside on national interest grounds months earlier, and some within the Howard government were worried another FIRB refusal might affect Australia’s reputation as being open for foreign investment. It also helped Canberra thinking that Optus’s vendor was already foreign, the British company Cable & Wireless. (Melbourne Liberal Party stalwart Charles Goode, then the chairman of ANZ Bank, was also Woodside chairman at the time and had been on Temasek’s Singapore Airlines board for two years, a power network that suggests it’s not only the Singapore corporate elite that get cosy.) Singapore got its Australian asset, and two decades later Singtel controls an Asia-Pacific regional communications network that includes an Australian military satellite. Australian commentators noted in 2001 that this was Singapore Inc.’s first major deal in a robust Western democracy and that Singapore might learn from Australia’s corporate culture, with its mandated transparency reporting procedures, its open media and its shareholder activism. All that might lead tightly wound Singapore into loosening up, they hoped. On the evidence of its initial instinct to turn inward during the data leak drama, holding back information and trying to shift blame, the opposite appears to have happened. Quickly lawyering up in Singapore, Singtel implored its shareholders to ignore media commentary on the Optus scandal as “speculative,” insisting a class action would be “vigorously defended” even as it was announcing an “independent” review to determine what actually happened. Also revealingly, Singapore’s state-controlled press has tended to publish straight international wire reports on the scandal instead of reports from its own reporters and commentators — as Singapore’s editors tend to do when they’re unsure about where their government masters will land. So much of Singapore Inc. is about control. We won’t know for some time how the Optus leak will be resolved, but Singapore’s elite will be discomfited that it has a huge asset it can’t fully control. And that it has shone an unwelcome spotlight on Singapore Inc. that might, just might, throw more light on how it operates. https://insidestory.org.au/singapore-swivel/