&&&&&&&& PROFITS & PHILANTHROPHY &&&&&&&&

Ha  ha, not surprising if more to come. Cheers.

Another knee jerk response?

Singaporeans can decide if they want to use the shuttle bus services to the integrated resorts

Conrad Raj

conrad@mediacorp.com.sg

If the service was in violation of the casino rules, why did it take some three months for the CRA to act?

Is this also another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, given that the LTA had given the go ahead?

Based On  FOUR  PILLARS  Of  GOOD  GOVERNANCE:

OPEN * FAIR * JUST * TRANSPARENT

ANNUAL  gamIng  LEVIES  shOUld  bE  revIsed  accOrdIngly:

RWS  S$2,000

MBS  S$4,000

PRIVATE  JACKPOT CLUBS  S$6,000

If they impose $200 levy entrance per visit,    many will pay $2000  !

Citizenship criteria: How much to disclose? — The assurance is that those given the red passport will be assessed on their allegiance to Singapore. Some are wondering, though, as the Government plans to approach a number of permanent residents to sink roots here, if the citizenship criteria can be clearer.

Esther Ng

estherng@mediacorp.com.sg

SINGAPORE

PRs know only that they are eligible to apply, if they are at least 21 and have been a PR for at least “two to six years prior to the date of application”, through two citizenship routes: Economic merits and family ties, according to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority’s (ICA) website.

Last year, the criteria was tightened, with the only detail given that the ability to integrate was an important consideration.

Some countries such as Australia have a clear points system and Institute of Policy Studies research fellow Leong Chan Hoong is one for a more transparent criteria and process, so that applicants know what they are “getting into rather than just filling in forms”.

Said Dr Leong: “The system has to be one that Singaporeans feel is legitimate and assures them about who is being admitted to Singapore and the skills they bring.”

While the ICA has said before that it does not disclose publicly the exact criteria to prevent abuse of information, the National Population Secretariat has said previously that language, culture and contributions to society are broad citizenship considerations.

Those whom MediaCorp spoke to suggested clear indicators in the areas such as education, number of years as a PR, special skills or contribution to Singapore, a salary not less than the median wage and children who have served National Service or have become Singaporeans.

Said Sembawang GRC MP Lim Wee Kiak: “We want to attract bright talent, so the criteria could be a diploma or degree without going into which class or where it’s from.”

But limiting citizenship to diploma and degree holders could mean missing out on talented people without academic qualifications, for instance, hairdresser David Gan or a three-star Michelin chef, said Marine Parade GRC MP Lim Biow Chuan.

More than just defining the criteria, the challenge is to disclose criteria that is both broad and informative for the public, said observers.

Listing such details could subject the Government to “litigation through a judiciary review”, said Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan.

“If you give A citizenship but not B, and B finds out, B could challenge the Government in court, demand an explanation,” Assistant Professor Tan said.

While ICA may have a set of indicators, “the authorities would want to have the discretion on who they give citizenship and this is the same with other countries”, he added.

IT consultant Manikandan Renganathan, 38, who has lived here for 14 years before becoming a citizen this year, agreed.

“Once you reveal it, more people will try to meet what’s required of them. Do you take all these people in?” he said.

The flipside is that “those who are rejected  won’t know how to improve their chances in a couple of years’ time and they could relocate to other countries pre-emptively”, said Asst Prof Tan.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak told MediaCorp, though, that from his experience in dealing with rejected applicants who turn up during his Meet-the-People sessions, the ICA does give “hints”.

“If the written reply says the applicant is advised to re-apply in six months’ time, it means the applicant is not ready yet, or if further upgrading is advised, the applicant needs to improve his skill or education level.”

It’s time we let it flow again.

Raise levy, nOt stOp FREE buses

Why deprive non-gambling patrons?

Letter from Quek Soo Beng

ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature.

For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets.

Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations?

So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services?

It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs.

The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service.

It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough.

Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not.

Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion?

But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing?

Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city.

The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services.

This wOn’t stOp gamblers

Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan

I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive.

The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go.

Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service?

If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space.

The free shuttle not only brings business  to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway.

Aussie churches ban Sinatra’s My Way —

MELBOURNE

Sports anthems and popular songs such as Frank Sinatra’s My Way have been banned from funerals at more than 200 Australian churches after new orders from Melbourne’s archbishop.

The edict follows a study that found the signature song for Australian Rules Football team Collingwood was one of the top requests at Melbourne funerals, along with My Way and the Bette Midler version of   

The Wind Beneath My Wings .

Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said sports songs were not appropriate for a service which emphasises the solemn nature of death and is not designed as a celebration of the deceased’s life.

“Secular items are never to be sung or played at a Catholic funeral, such as romantic ballads, pop or rock music, political songs, football club songs,” Archbishop Hart wrote in the new guidelines.

“At the funerals of children ... nursery rhymes and sentimental secular songs are inappropriate because these may intensify grief.”

The move in Melbourne has received a mixed reaction, a spokesman for the church said.

One parish priest, Father Bob Maguire from South Melbourne, said the move would make it harder to balance the needs of mourners with those of the church.

He told Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper he preferred to see funerals as “family affairs attended by clergy, not a clergymen’s affair attended by family”. AFP

Mr Oakeshott said his decision to back Ms Gillard had angered some parliamentary colleagues and he knew this would make it difficult to deliver the US$9 billion ($12 billion) package for rural Australia the independents had negotiated with her. — An independent Australian politician whose support was crucial to keeping Prime Minister Julia Gillard in power on Friday knocked back an offer to become a minister in her minority government.AFP

mOst  UnethIcal  gamIng  scheme ? ? ? ?

allOws  IrrespOnsIble  gamIng  by  bIddIng  at  S$1 mIllIOn  ? ? ? ?

wIth  gamIng  chance  tO  pay  fOr  Only  S$2  ? ? ? ?

BAN  It  ethIcally  as  It  Is  a  fOrm  Of  gamIng  ? ? ? ?

an  IncentIvIsed  gamIng  scheme  [IGS]  ? ? ? ?

Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE

Sunday: 5th September 2010

Someone asked me:

 Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?

Then I had a dream.

I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.

Why a $2 COE?

It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.

True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.

As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.

'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.

'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'

In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.

Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.

Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.

In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.

This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.

He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).

In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.

Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.

Remember, it was a dream.

You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.

I'll use a simplified illustration myself.

Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.

Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.

These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.

In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.

But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?

The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.

If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.

Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.

To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?

Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?

Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2!      *  It  is  defInItely  wOrth  it  !  *

Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.

The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.

As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.

Come on, we can do it.

Just hold back on your need for a car this round.

It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.

The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.

Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}>

Citizenship can’t be forced on someone

Letter from Eunice Goh

I AM shocked that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has suggested that we will force 50,000 permanent residents (PRs) to become Singapore citizens (“A ‘better’ way to manage PRs: SM Goh”, Sept 7).

This is not fair.

I am sure we would not want Singaporeans who are PRs in other countries to be subjected to the same treatment.

PRs who earn more than $150,000 a year contribute to the economy, so why not let them remain as PRs and we benefit from their tax contributions?

If we force them to choose, they will probably move to Hong Kong or Taiwan and commute to Singapore.

Singapore would then lose out.

There is nothing wrong with PRs remaining PRs as long as they pay their taxes and do not get to vote or enjoy the benefits of citizens.

Citizenship should be awarded to those who want to be citizens — not forced to take it up.

Remisiers should know BEST as this affects their ricebowl directly. Perhaps a poll would shed more light on this.

The staff told us other angry drivers have complained about the charges — one was especially worked up after being charged more than $60!

Letter from Julie Johari

It may not be immediately obvious to you, but like a gambling addict, you need protection from yourself.

In  vIew  Of   rIsk  Of  near tOtal lOss

and   dIre  Of  near  zerO  Interest  rate

bEttEr  and  safEr  tO  depOsIt  In

GENTING  TWINS ?