Singapore's Rich-Poor Divide

"HOW COME THE RICH-POOR DIVIDE DOES NOT CLOSE DESPITE BEING THERE BEFORE AND CORRECTING THE PROBLEM? WHAT ARE WE MISSING? "

Singapore Swing
The island's economy is booming. So why are so many citizens worse off than they were 10 years ago?
- Singapore's Rich-Poor Divide
By Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop (Newsweek International)
Jan. 29, 2007 issue

- Tiny Singapore, with its population of 4.3 million, is often lauded for the way it has embraced globalization to maximum advantage. In the last decade, the city-state has opened its doors wide to foreign investment and talent, slashed corporate taxes, offered incentives to nurture strategic industries (such as biotech, pharmaceuticals and financial services) and cut free-trade deals with a host of other countries. The payoff has seemed clear: over the past three years, Singapore's economy has averaged 7.6 percent growth—a staggering pace for an industrialized state—and created new jobs at a rate any European government would envy.
There's only one problem: average citizens have yet to reap the benefits. New statistics reveal that middle-class households have tasted none of Singapore's spectacular growth, and that the island's poorest 30 percent are worse off than they were five years ago. "Although we have seen very strong growth, we're experiencing this new phenomenon of median real-wage stagnation and low-income decline," says Yeoh Lam Keong, vice president of the Economic Society of Singapore. This predicament is hardly unique. Wages and salaries are stagnating across the industrial world. What's surprising is that even a country famous for its smart and transparent leadership has been unable to prevent the gains of globalization from flowing mostly to rich individuals and multinational corporations. In its bid to adapt Singapore's economy to international competition, the government has tried hard to reduce business costs. This has meant slashing labor prices, which has helped push wages down. According to official figures, over the past five years Singapore's wealthiest 10 percent have seen their income rise by 2.3 percent annually (and that doesn't include nonwage earnings such as capital gains or dividends). At the same time, the poorest 10 percent have suffered a staggering 4.3 percent drop in their salaries each year. The government has also allowed employers to cut their contributions to Singapore's Central Provident Fund, which pays for pensions, public housing, medical expenses and educatn on.
Together, these factors have led to lower-than-expected private consumption, which has risen by just 3 percent in the past two years. "Private consumer spending has been the weak link in this current expansion," says Chua Hak Bin, an economist at Citigroup Global Markets in Singapore. This has, in turn, stung Singapore's large retail sector. "It is evident that [they] are not the big winners from high growth," says Manu Bhaskaran, a director of the U.S.-based Centennial Group.
Foreign competition is also hurting. Contractor Tan Boon Soo is one of many Singaporeans feeling the pinch. He installs windows for a living but laments "cutthroat competition" from contract laborers, who have flooded the island from places such as Indonesia and Bangladesh. Unskilled workers like street sweepers and security guards are also finding themselves undercut by immigrants willing to work for less. This is forcing native Singaporeans to change occupations or work harder for less money. "They talk about growth, but I don't see it," says Tan. "Maybe the bankers are doing well, but construction has not been. I'm worse off now than I was in 1997."
All this could spell big trouble. "If these trends continue unchecked," warns Yeoh, "we could begin to get the formation of an underclass [and] the makings of social instability." Such an underclass was never part of Singapore's grand plan. Now its leaders must figure out how to prevent one from emerging without relying on the kind of welfare programs they often deride. Last year the government launched an experimental workfare program that gave low-wage earners bonus pay of up to $780. Now Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's government is con- sidering making the program permanent in an effort to thin the ranks of the working poor.
"We will try out different forms, but the principle will be the same—help yourself [and] we will help you," the prime minister told lawmakers last November. "It's essential for us to tilt the balance in favor of lower-income Singaporeans because globalization is going to strain our social compact."
Lee has already announced that he'll make Singapore's rich-poor divide a major focus of his annual budget speech next month.
If knowing is half the battle, it could be an important first step.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.lopn.net/ST_Casestudy22_Richpoor.html

SG Justice at the crossroads: 'Trash' in court hoopla...

Justice at the crossroads: 'Trash' in court hoopla...

Why the big hoopla?(see disclaimer below), exerps are from article below.Because a Judge has judged not on substance but the book by its cover...

A simple analogy will help :A robber 'breaks into' a mafia boss's home, tying up his 2 maids at (fake)gunpoint. Having found nothing substantive to steal upstairs, he explores the basement wine cellar, only to discover a woman gagged and tied to the staircase railing outside the cellar door. She motions him to enter the cooled cellar where in a fresh corpse is seen. A burglar alarm sounds, but before escape, the robber videotapes his findings, ostensibly with the intent of blackmailing the rich man/ releasing the captive (s). The rich man refuses to pay blackmail$ nor release his captives and the photographs of the scene, deceased and captive are extremely incriminating. (Victims are persons on the police 'missing persons' files).
The robber then posts his pictures and video on U-tube...
Shouldn't the police investigate the matter?Is the (criminally obtained) evidence admissible in the court of law?
Who is this High Court judge Andrew Ang i wonder...And how does this episode differentiate Singapore from other parts of the world where $$$ influences the judgement: where Judges are corrupt, greased by the provision of $$?
Who then upholds the law of justice?
Why crossroads:There is justice and there is Justice.Some judges are plain corrupt.Some are incompetent/ lazy, prefering dice/ expediency for convenience.But the Golden few, they judge on substance. And it is because of such good men that our lives are a pleasure today. And where does Singapore stand?

- "this is a grey area in Singapore law"- so I infer: the Mafia Boss is protected, police cannot investigate illegal footage?

- "Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies... ...come from places where their laws are more stringent. ...So, if we want to attract them here... ...We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'"- so Mafia Boss is welcomed to SG and its IRs?

"CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial."The issue is one of case fact, and the court must address all relevant evidences of fact as the case so presents, eventually upholding the justice of the matter; if necessary, the Judge should make his judgement contigent upon the addressing of other pertinent issues, e.g.:- Directing police/ lower court to investigate issue of trespass/ willful damage of pte property/ intimidation/ harassment and prosecute/ order eventual return of such property (after all material fact is admitted to the higher court) etc.- informing defendents about restitutive means should plaintiffs have caused injury during any illegal actions.- using such 'plaintiff violations' as mitigating factors in judgement where approprate but NOT disregarding any evidences of fact.

So I conclude that Singapore High court would have made a judgement of convenience, not a judgement of substance (having omitted essential material facts), in doing so, the SG high court has betrayed the cause of Justice.
Same problem in many enblock processes... (which riles me)

Disclaimer:(comments are solely based upon substance of report and accurate only to the extent of personal observation for the purpose of forum discussion; I cannot gurantee the accuracy of the quoted newspaper report).

-----------
The Electric New Paper : Can trash be used in court? Clear legislation on issue may help draw more MNCs to set up shop here, says one lawyer CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case? By Andre Yeo 18 October 2007 CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?
Right now this is a grey area in Singapore law.
But it is allowed in the US state of Florida, said a lawyer who is here for the International Bar Association (IBA) Conference. He gave details of how a debtor was caught concealing his assets.
In Singapore, the issue came up when the High Court ruled in February that information from your rubbish bin can't be used against you.
But Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong allowed an appeal against the ruling, saying the issue would have 'serious repercussions for everybody'.
However, he said the issue of who owns the rubbish should be decided in a separate trial.
Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies would be comforted to know if there is clear legislation on this topic. They come from places where their laws are more stringent.
'So, if we want to attract them here, we need to offer them the same level of protection that they get in their own countries.
'We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'
Criminal lawyer Mark Goh said there were some hurdles to overcome when dealing with garbage ownership.
Said Mr Goh: 'Information can be confidential and must be separated from the physical piece of paper.
'So a person can argue that while he threw away the piece of paper because he did not want it anymore, he can also argue that the information contained on that piece of paper was confidential and he did not intend to give it away.
'So, the confidential information would still be his property.
'If I deliberately shred a piece of paper, that indicates I treat the information as confidential and want to deny public access to it.
'But if you retrieve it and piece it back together, how can you argue that it was in the public domain?'
FLORIDA CASE
Mr Martin Kenney, one of more than 4,000 participants from 120 countries at the IBA Conference, said in Monday's session on business intelligence and industrial espionage, that for 18 months, his law firm monitored a fraud suspect's movements at home.
He said his clients had accused the man in Florida of owing them US$21.9 million ($32m), which he had borrowed in a business deal.
He was also found to be involved in Medicare (a medical insurance programme for the elderly) fraud and was made a bankrupt.
Before Mr Kenney's agents began the sting operation, they had to make sure taking the man's trash was allowed there.
He said: 'We had to make sure it was not illegal in the state of Florida.
'It wasn't. It was by the side of a public road.
'As long as the trash was outside the person's property, it was considered 'abandoned property'.'
He said they found documents from the man's lawyers and other incriminating information showing he had had an elaborate plan to conceal his assets.
A settlement was reached, but Mr Kenney said he could not reveal its details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE question was posed last month in a case before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
Creditors who use private investigators to sift through debtor's bin want to use it against debtor in court.
High Court judge Andrew Ang says improper and/or illegal to do this, in February last year. Rules against creditors, but they appeal.
CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,145106,00.html?

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.

Bush allows torture of detainees

Bush allows torture of detainees, says Jimmy Carter
Friday • October 12, 2007
WASHINGTON — United States President George W Bush's administration tortures detainees in defiance of international law, former President Jimmy Carter charged on Wednesday.
"I don't think it, I know it, certainly," Mr Carter told CNN television when asked if he believed the US administration allowed the use of torture.
Mr Carter rejected Mr Bush's statement last week that the US does not torture terror suspects.
"That's not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honoured, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated," Mr Carter said.
"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, 'We don't violate them.' And ... you can make your own definition of torture and say 'we don't violate it'," said the former Democrat President and Nobel laureate.
Asked if Mr Bush was lying, Mr Carter said: "The President is self-defining what we have done and authorised in the torture of prisoners, yes."
The White House rejected Mr Carter's comments and reiterated that the administration does not condone torture.
"The United States does not torture," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told AFP in an email.
— AFP http://www.todayonline.com/articles/216260.asp#