While I am almost lost in the midst of all the CPF changes which includes:

1. Freezing the first $20,000 of your Ordinary Account
2. Freezing the first $60,000 of your total CPF Accounts
3. Adding 1% to the current prevailing interest paid to the sum in the CPF Accounts

I do have some comments regarding these changes. Mr Chin had written to the Straits Times forum (letter reproduced below) applauding the move to freeze the accounts as listed above accordingly because he feels that non-savvy investors should get protected from investments that do not even give them 5%. I feel that this is a 2-prong issue and it lies with not just the investor (with the CPF funds), but with the financial advisor as well. At the same time, I also think that the Mr Chin is a little misinformed about investments.

With regards to the 2-prong issue, I think that the financial advisor has the moral responsibility to inform the investor of potential risks and to gauge the risk appetite of the investor - be it for cash investment or CPF investment. In addition, since only CPFIS-approved funds can be invested in, this effectively cuts out high-risk investment portfolios that puts the investor in danger of losing funds in times of need and high volatility.

The investor should also exercise caution in investing his CPF funds - if he has no confidence in investments, he should just stick to what the CPF board can give him in the long run. If he has a higher risk appetite and is well informed of the risks in investment, I feel that he should not be restricted from investing using his CPF funds.

I have personally invested whatever little amount my CPF account has and have not regretted doing so. Based on the returns that I have now, it’s something that the CPF board can’t provide. However, I do recognise that returns are based on timing and environment and I was fortunate enough to have started investing at the right time. The market today may not be the same as the time that I started investing - but still, this should not discourage anyone from finding out more on what investing their CPF funds can bring them.

Like Mr Chin, I am waiting for Mr O’Dell to list the products that can benefit CPF members. The CPF board should not hinder investors from making informed choices.

CPF move to stop members using first $20,000 from SA to invest is timely

I REFER to the article, ‘Insurance industry to be hit by new CPF rules’ (ST, Nov 7), and applaud the CPF Board’s timely decision not to allow its members to use the first $20,000 in the Ordinary Account (OA) and Special Account (SA) savings for investment under the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) to safeguard the savings of its members.

The recent sub-prime loans problem has an adverse global ramification on the investment climate. The new ruling could not come at a more appropriate time to protect non-savvy investor members from succumbing to sales pitches of investment companies.

The president of the Life Insurance Association (LIA), Mr Mark O’Dell, had postulated ‘that investment-linked products provide opportunities for superior returns, compared to the rates offered under the CPFIS’.

But the reality is that with the pending increase in interest rate by 1 per cent on the OA and SA savings, it is difficult, if not impossible, for any CPFIS products to match the 5 per cent return, much less achieve a higher rate.

Perhaps, Mr O’Dell could identity the products offered by the association’s member insurance companies for the benefit of CPF members.

Chin Kee Thou

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 10th November 2007

I had to write this entry while hiding my title input box because the “sex” word is very catchy and I don’t want everyone walking past me to look at what I am writing about. Hmm… I don’t quite know what to make out of this. I can’t tell if the writer is making a mockery out of the entire situation, or is he genuine on asking NMP Thio to address the issues of oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, adultery between heterosexual couples, premarital sex, prostitution, masturbation, and sex between lesbian couples. This basically covered quite a fair bit of things under Christianity - which I feel, is mixing politics and religion again.

The issues of oral and anal sex was already disputed since the repeal of Section 377 - a result of some agreement that these were rules of the colonial times (or something to that extent). Adultery and premarital sex, although immoral in most religions, is not enforced in Singapore simply because it is not a religious state. Prostitution is one of the oldest trade in the world since the olden times - and there’s very little way to control it - and hence, the best way is to regulate it.

M is something that, erm… occurs naturally to a certain extent… which I believe will help reduce the number of rape cases. Haha… ya, maybe there’s no link, but besides engaging yourself spiritually and not letting your mind wander off, I think this is probably a good avenue to vent out your… erm… desires.

Lastly… lesbian sex. Heh… sometimes I wonder if the term is oxymoron. Hmm…

However, the whole idea behind this post is that - people have a tendency to mix religion and politics. The writer did acknowledge that his views are Christian in nature - but if NMP Thio were to align to his agenda, then shouldn’t she align to the views of the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists? I still strongly believe that religion should be separated from politics - unless the writer wants to be a vegan for the rest of his life. What rights does he have to think that his religion rules over the rest? If there is no religious harmony - i.e. the co-existance of different religions, then there could be chaos - the same applied for racial harmony.

There is something though, that I can’t agree with how the writer has put in the letter, in particular, the following statements:

… Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic ‘hate-mongerer’, bullying only a particular segment of the community.

In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a ‘lousy friend’, or in this case, a ‘lousy citizen’ or ‘lousy NMP’ by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors’ worst criticisms…

I thought it was a rather smart but underhanded means to get someone to agree with his personal views and agenda - by questioning the integrity of someone else. Personally, I think this is a despicable way of doing things - by indirectly insulting the morality of someone else and painting a worst-case scenario should the other person not agree with him. As much as the gay community do not agree with NMP Thio on her arguments, I don’t think the gay community can be as vicious as accusing the morality of NMP Thio. The writer should be ashamed of himself for bringing his personal agenda and motives to the public.

NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite

THANK you for presenting Dr Thio Li-ann’s case on the repeal of Section 377A to the public, ‘A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire’ by Ms Li Xueying (ST, Nov 2).

I think Dr Thio is right to express her moral position on this issue. However, I think a lot of the negative reaction she is getting may stem from the fact that she is perceived to be solely targeting the homosexual community with her views on sexual licentiousness and gross indecency. As sexual licentiousness is a problem afflicting all genders and sexualities, Dr Thio must be equally outraged about unnatural and immoral acts among heterosexuals as well, all of which are not criminal acts in Singapore, such as:

1. Oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples (after all, this is also akin to ‘drinking with a straw through the nose’ and must be equally repugnant to her).

2. Adultery between heterosexual couples.

3. Premarital sex.

4. Prostitution.

5. Masturbation.

7. Sex between lesbian couples.

When your journalist, Ms Li, asked her about her views on other moral issues, she gave a rather vague reply. As Dr Thio believes policy making in Singapore should be guided by some form of morality, and has made a stand on sex between homosexuals, suggesting that what is morally unacceptable to her should be considered a criminal act, she must make equally strong stands on the abovementioned issues. These are sins of equal magnitude in Christianity, all of which are as detrimental to family values as homosexuality. Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic ‘hate-mongerer’, bullying only a particular segment of the community.

In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a ‘lousy friend’, or in this case, a ‘lousy citizen’ or ‘lousy NMP’ by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors’ worst criticisms.

Peter Lee Peng Eng

Article obtained from the straitstimes.com online forums on 10th November 2007

This is apparently what was happening yesterday when motorists were caught by surprise, the new ERP gantry just before the PIE exit along the CTE. Drivers jammed break and caused havoc along the CTE, although no accidents had been recorded. Some drivers were also left stranded on the road shoulder in an attempt to beg other drivers to lend them their Cashcard.

I am not sure how much publicity had gone into alerting drivers of the change/addition in ERP charges/gantries - but this sort of scenario is really surprising - considering that such incidents were unheard of previously. Perhaps the LTA should not take for granted that everyone will know of the new changes in the future? People may just miss that particular hour radio news or paper if they happen to be busy. Repititions/reminders may be better in this case, although there may be more bad publicity. How bad can it get anyway?

By the way, is there such thing as a driver who is unwilling to pay when he’s already on the CTE in the evening? Hmm…

An Isuzu truck driver was one of those who slammed on the brakes suddenly as they approached the new Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry on the north-bound Central Expressway (CTE).

Caught by surprise by the new night-time ERP charge at the gantry sited after Jalan Bahagia’s exit ramp - which began operating on Monday evening - those unwilling to pay the fee or without CashCards have been causing havoc with their stunts.

The charge is either 50 cents or $1 from 5.30pm to 10.30pm.

The New Paper yesterday reported that one taxi driver stopped on the road shoulder meant for emergency vehicles and begged other motorists to let him use their CashCard.

At least 20 cars seeking to avoid paying were spotted waiting on the road shoulder on Tuesday, hoping in vain that the gantry display indicating ERP in effect would go off soon. These motorists caused a jam.

Some just slammed on their brakes on seeing that the gantry was in operation.

The Land Transport Authority said 2,046 motorists were caught violating the ERP rules on Monday.

They either passed under the gantry without a CashCard in their in-vehicle units (IUs) or had insufficient funds on their cards.

On the CTE, about 10,000 vehicles per hour were counted heading north in the evening peak hours last year.

This is about three times the volume on most arterial roads.

Driving under a gantry without a CashCard inserted into the IU or an insufficient balance on the card brings the motorist an ‘administrative charge’ of $10 plus the ERP charge evaded.

Article retrieved from straitstimes.com on 10th November 2007; original, unedited photo by Chew Sing Kim

Apparently, I missed the chance to purchase a Swift at $0.23 only. Nope, there’s no gimmick here. Yes, it’s only $0.23; and no, there’s no lucky draw - you don’t have to buy any charity tickets, you don’t have to sit in for some talk that lasts 3 hours when it’s only supposed to be 15 to 30 minutes, and no, you don’t have to go anywhere nor switch off your handphone when you go collect your car. It’s true. It’s real. It’s… tatarah! *tada!*

Yes, apparently a Mr Wee Kim Boon successfully bidded a Swift 1.5L for a unique bid of $0.23. If you are not familiar with Tatarah, they used to have auctions where the winner is the person who provided the lowest unique bid. However, for there is an admin fee of $1 for your bid, and I’m not sure if each person is limited to only 1 bid.

However, for some reason, they have changed the model to the unique highest bid model such that the bidder with the unique highest bid gets the stuff. It’s very much like the eBay and Y!auctions model except that if you have a tie at the top bid, then the item supposedly goes to the next lower bid that has no tie.

Frankly, I have no idea how they are going to cover their cost, especially when one of the next item to bid for is a Mercedes Benz C200 Kompressor! At $140,000 and with the change in the bidding model, I think it’s a waste of my time to even try to bid. Like what one of my friends said, it’s very much like 4D, except that they are collecting admin fees from you instead of bets. Moreover, you still have to pay for what you bid if you win at the end of the day. Heh.