• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
It's a sign of desperation. Reminds me of Tan Kin Lian's PE survey he conducted on his own blog. He came out tops by a large margin only to lose his deposit.

This is like polling SIA cabin crew on probation if they think SIA's services is good. LOL
 
Last edited:

chucky

Alfrescian
Loyal
Demolition or not, they should let the familee decide. TCH or GCT can be the mediator/arbitrator.

Based on the latest development, my guess is that the house will be demolition. It is necessary for the completion of the project. It now becomes clearer why lhy goes to the international press.

Whoever that comes out with this plot, it is a great job. No matter what happened, blood is still thicker than water. The siblings had ssacrificed to save him at the end of the day.

Hope that my guess is correct, then there is still hope for sg.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
PSD as well as PSC which is supposed to be independent are lost. Janadas Devon is a DS and Chua Lee Hoong is now a Sr Director in PMO. Both are clearly political appointments yet they are in the Civil Service roster.

PSD directly reports to big brown nose Teo............ so survey done for him so that bigger boss can exploit results 3rd July

PS
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
PSD as well as PSC which is supposed to be independent are lost. Janadas Devon is a DS and Chua Lee Hoong is now a Sr Director in PMO. Both are clearly political appointments yet they are in the Civil Service roster.

Are those two individuals part of the the Admin Service?
 

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
:*::*::*::*::*:
 

Attachments

  • house.JPG
    house.JPG
    96.4 KB · Views: 1,221

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
Both PM and wife have been courting FB, Google etc to invest in Jurong. This the distributed ledger, banks allowed to invest in fintech, cyber security, authentication etc are part of his planned legacy of the Smart Nation. Wife also got Singtel to acquire top notch cybersecurity firm. Last thing on their mind are civil servants or the school kids.

To me we are going into the same matrix as the Suzhou, Tianjin Eco city debacles, bending over backwards only to come up seriously short short.

The transfers of whole depts from 2 MICA, MOF etc to PMO is huge.

Right on point:

MAS Streamlines Framework for Banks Carrying On Permissible Non-financial Businesses

Singapore, 27 June 2017… The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced today that it will streamline the regulatory requirements for banks seeking to conduct or invest in permissible non-financial businesses. In a speech at the 44th Annual Dinner of The Association of Banks in Singapore, Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Finance, said that these will be businesses that are related or complementary to banks’ core financial businesses.

2. The regulatory framework separating banks’ financial and non-financial businesses (“anti-commingling framework”) was introduced in 2001 to ensure that banks remained focused on their core businesses and competencies. The banking landscape has evolved considerably since then. Technological advancements have created opportunities for banks to provide customers with integrated financial and related non-financial services through digital platforms. The proposed measures by MAS will give banks more flexibility to serve the needs of their customers while ensuring they remain focused on their core financial businesses.

Adjustments to Anti-commingling Framework

3. MAS will refine the anti-commingling framework for banks in two key aspects.

4. First, MAS will make it easier for banks to conduct or invest in non-financial businesses that are related or complementary to their core financial businesses.

(a) Banks need not seek prior regulatory approval before conducting or acquiring major equity stakes in permissible non-financial businesses. Banks will instead be required to notify MAS prior to doing so. MAS will continue to require banks to put in place appropriate risk management and governance arrangements to deal with the risks arising from these businesses.

(b) To limit exposure and ensure that banks continue to focus on their core businesses, MAS will cap such permissible non-financial businesses to 10% of the bank’s capital funds.

5. Second, MAS will allow banks to engage in the operation of digital platforms that match buyers and sellers of consumer goods or services as well as the online sale of such goods or services, if such activities are related or complementary to their core financial businesses. This recognises that online purchases of goods and services and the use of e-payment services are becoming increasingly integrated. MAS’ proposed refinement will allow banks to broaden their ability to provide a fuller suite of services to their retail customers. Beyond digital platforms, banks will need to seek case-by-case approval, as they should not be engaging in the sale of consumer goods or services as a business in its own right.

6. Notwithstanding the revision of the anti-commingling framework, banks will continue to be prohibited from entering certain businesses such as property development and the provision of hotel and resort facilities.

7. MAS will consult on the operational details of these policy changes by end of September 2017.

****

Notes to editor:
1 The anti-commingling framework was introduced in 2001 when the local banks had built up diverse non-banking businesses, especially in property. The framework was a pre-emptive move to ensure that banks remain focused on their core banking business and competencies, and avoid contagion problems that could arise from the conduct of non-financial businesses. The general thrust of the policy was to:
a. prohibit banks from directly undertaking businesses other than banking and financial businesses; and
b. prohibit banks from acquiring major stakes in a non-financial companies.

2 As the nature of financial services changed with technology, MAS’ anti-commingling framework has evolved. In 2011, MAS took a first step to give banks greater allowance to carry on non-financial businesses that are related or complementary to their core financial businesses. This was subject to specific conditions and the requirement to obtain regulatory approval from parent supervisory authorities.


So banks are being urged now to compete with Carousel Taoboa Amazon Ebay Alibaba....sigh
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
So while the feud among Singapore's elite escalates, it is important to look back at what their father and the founding father of modern Singapore thought of his two sons

In the book, 'Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going', the late LKY describes the youngest of his three children, Lee Hsien Yang, as "a sensible and practical man"

According to LKY, Hsien Yang wanted to follow his brother Hsien Loong, who would follow his father's footsteps and eventually become the Prime Minister of Singapore.

"He decided to follow his brother and wanted to go to Cambridge too. 'I said you know your brother was quite exceptional and you are going to the same college. They will expect you to live up to his standards. He said, "That's all right, I'm not doing mathematics, I'm doing engineering."'

"(Hsien Yang) was not abashed. He was not under his brother's shadow. He went up and got a First. He wanted to get a Starred First, but he didn't get it," LKY recounted.

"He is good at investing, very shrewd. His mother would give him her money to invest. Most times, he invested wisely," the late Lee Kuan Yew added.

Hsien Yang possesses the unique capability to understand when someone wants to use him or his family's contacts
As LKY describes, Hsien Yang was known to James Wolfensohn from the World Bank.

"James knew he was smart in investments. He asked me to get Hsien Yang to join with his two children who were starting a boutique investment bank. I put it to him and he said, "No, they want to make use of my contacts in this part of the world."

http://says.com/my/news/as-singapor...ates-here-s-what-late-lky-thought-of-his-sons
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
When Janadas lost his job in the US, he came to Singapore and could not find a job. He approached Arthur Lim for help. Arthur helped him out by giving a writing assignment but more importantly Arthur contacted George Yeo who was with MITA to help him out. GY got him the job with SPH. So he went back to US and wrote columns on English, Literature etc. Now he is a DS.

yes,must have been co-opted....or did they get interviewed by the PSC?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
20 years ago MAS made Singapore banks to extricate themselves from Non-Bank businesses and OCBC which was basically a conglomerate under Tan Chin Tuan had to make the painful move. Now the start-ups both local and foreign are lobbying the govt to invest. One particular start-up went to Silicon Valley led by a ex-Mindef Cyber chap. It failed and return and Mindef age them contracts. Reminds me of Old Man and Templeton Funds with Mark Mobius. The latter successfully lobbied Old Man to open CPF funds to outside investment and we know what happened next - most of them lost money.

Both the sons are heavy into IT and very passionate. Most parents will indulge their kids. So if the kid is interested in showjumping, mum and dad will buy a horse. When it comes to the first family, the state resources also comes into play. Lets see what happens next. Remember Old man kept his son year back so as to create the SAFOS.


Right on point:

MAS Streamlines Framework for Banks Carrying On Permissible Non-financial Businesses

Singapore, 27 June 2017… The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced today that it will streamline the regulatory requirements for banks seeking to conduct or invest in permissible non-financial businesses. In a speech at the 44th Annual Dinner of The Association of Banks in Singapore, Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Finance, said that these will be businesses that are related or complementary to banks’ core financial businesses.
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
[video=youtube_share;CabXHXZ9Uz8]https://youtu.be/CabXHXZ9Uz8[/video]最新)星國風雲: 李顯揚指被大哥監控?李顯龍掌控的新加坡 李瑋玲指責大哥“造神”、李顯揚離開?(寶傑哥分析)~【Oxley Saga Latest Updates】
 

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
:biggrin:





Students take pills, China’s dog meat festival, Lee Saga, etc | Coffee & Whiskey #12



see vid 03:59:00


Published on Jun 28, 2017

Students taking pills for studies - something is wrong with our education system. Thumbs up for CDAC’s new focus on helping ALL races. The dog meat festival in China and would she eat her own dog, the Lee saga and more.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
One of the best, picked out by Rusty, see the part in bold where Indranee hangs herself.

https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress....nsulted-by-his-own-pap-ministers-publicly/LKY kena insulted by his own PAP ministers publicly, MPs taking turns on 3 July
Posted on June 27, 2017 by Phillip Ang
It’s a fact that PAP politicians are despicable because they are all in it for the money.

When LKY was alive, every minister and MP would kow tow to him like a demi-god. No one had ever imagined ministers would stoop so low as to insult their previous master after he had passed on, ie none would have dared question his mental faculties when he was alive.

Chair of the secret ministerial committee Teo Chee Hean doubted LKY knew his own wishes according to this CNA article, “COMMITTEE’S INTEREST CONFINED TO THE LIGHT IT SHEDS ON MR LEE’S WISHES FOR THE HOUSE: DPM TEO”.

When LKY’s successor Goh Chok Tong said, “I have read DPM Teo Chee Hean’s statement explaining the setting up of the ministerial committee to study the future status of 38 Oxley Road. I support the careful way in which DPM …”, he was clearly agreeable to the possibility of LKY being senile.

The latest to jump on the LKY-wish-no-pakai bandwagon is SMOS for Law ndranee Rajah. This is actually quite shocking considering Indranee has been an MP in LKY’s GRC since 2001. Indranee is clearly worse than a hypocrite.

Since LKY’s final will was written 15 months before he passed on, he could not have been senile, ie unable to read and understand his own will. If LKY was senile, Indranee owed taxpayers a duty to inform the government that LKY was unable to discharge his MP responsibilities.

Why the need to convene a ministerial committee to analyse LKY’s wishes if he was not senile?

Indranee won’t be the last MP to spin the allegations of power abuse issue into 38 Oxley Road family dispute. Perhaps the clown minister keechiu Chan has been busy preparing to do battle on 3 July?

It appears LKY won’t be insulted by only PAP ministers; on 3 July, every PAP MP will be singing the same 38 Oxley Road tune in perfect harmony. The conductor is none other than PM Lee who, to his sister, is a “dishonorable son“.

PM Lee has proven to be incapable of standing on his own feet as a result of being spoon-fed all his life. Instead of moving with the times, PM Lee has simply continued with LKY’s repressive policies and even introduced more of his own. He has wrongly assumed that they will continue to work wonders as they did during papa’s reign.

In their desperate attempt to support PM Lee’s incompetence, PAP ministers (PAP MPs will take turns on 3 July) no longer give a hoot if LKY is turning in his grave and continue to insult him publicly. It seems they have suddenly lost all respect for their once ‘great’ leader
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
I think many Singaporeans knew that the realistic possibility of a 90 year old LKY being able to fulfill his MP duties was a big stretch. And ask anyone and they would say nobody would dare to question LKY.

LKY is gone now. LHL is in his place. The way I look at this saga is whether the Singaporeans will support LHL to the extent he becomes another LKY solely on the ghost of his father (looking at how LHL's own achievements are buncombe).

I'm betting that he will get the support but not to the extent he is LKY.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/06/28/eleven-questions-that-psd-could-answer-about-its-poll-with-public-officers-on-the-lee-family-saga/

Eleven questions that PSD could answer about its poll with public officers on the Lee family saga
Posted on June 28, 2017 by Leong Sze Hian
Category: This entry was posted in Opinion.

I refer to the article “PSD polling public officers on Oxley Road spat as allegations involve integrity of public sector” (Straits Times, Jun 28).
It states that “The Public Service Division (PSD) is polling public officers about the ongoing spat between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, as the accusations involve the integrity of the public sector.

The PSD said in a statement on Tuesday (June 28) that “the allegations made go beyond private matters and extend to the conduct and integrity of the Government and our public institutions”.

Since we are talking about “the conduct and integrity of the Government and our public institutions” – can the PSD address the following questions:-
Who made the decision to conduct the poll?

Is the Prime Minister and the head of the civil service aware that the poll is being conducted?

1.What is the PSD’s understanding of “conflict of interest” since the PSD is in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)?

2.Will the results of the poll be made public?

3.To whom will the results of the poll be reported to?

4.As to “The statement comes after screenshots of the poll were circulated on Facebook and social media, with some people questioning whether public resources should be used to conduct a poll on “family matters”.

5.Responding to media queries about the poll, the PSD said: “We are polling public officers to understand their sentiments on this issue as it involves the integrity of our public institutions, of which they are an important part”” – can the PSD also address the following questions:-

6.Given the serious concerns expressed in Singapore as well as international about the “secret” ministerial committee – why is the PSD conducting a “secret” poll, without informing Singaporeans?

7. Did the PSD even consider that conducting such a poll may further damage Singapore’s reputation in respect of “abuse of power”, use of public resources for “private matters”, etc?

8. With regard to “It added that it periodically polls public officers on issues that matter to them as part of “stakeholder engagement”” – when was the last time that the PSD conducted such a polling exercise and for what issue, and how man of such polls were done in the last year, last five years, etc?
In respect of “In one question, respondent’s were asked for their views on the matter.

9. The multiple choice answers included an option saying the incident would have a long-term impact on Singapore’s reputation, and one saying the country’s reputation will recover “after the incident has calmed down”” – does the PSD not realise that such an exercise may actually add to the damage to the “long-term impact on Singapore’s reputation”, hinder the “country’s reputation’s” recovery, and fuel the storm rather than “calming it down”?

10. As to “Another question asked public officers the extent to which the dispute has affected their confidence in the integrity and impartiality of Singapore’s public institutions and the public service” – did the PSD consider the possibility that such a poll may further affect and diminish Singaporeans’ (and civil servants too) “confidence in the integrity and impartiality of Singapore’s public institutions and the public service”?

11. With regard to “while a third question asked whether or not they agreed that the issue should be addressed in Parliament” – why is the PSD asking this when “PM Lee had (already) said earlier that he will deliver a ministerial statement in Parliament on July 3 to refute his siblings’ “baseless accusations””?
Some of my friends say – “if already so much of the ruckus in the past 10 days or so isn’t making much sense and only making Singapore the laughing stock of the world – this latest PSD’s polling exercise may really “top it off”!
 

ckmpd

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/06/28/eleven-questions-that-psd-could-answer-about-its-poll-with-public-officers-on-the-lee-family-saga/

Eleven questions that PSD could answer about its poll with public officers on the Lee family saga
Posted on June 28, 2017 by Leong Sze Hian
Category: This entry was posted in Opinion.

I refer to the article “PSD polling public officers on Oxley Road spat as allegations involve integrity of public sector” (Straits Times, Jun 28).
It states that “The Public Service Division (PSD) is polling public officers about the ongoing spat between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, as the accusations involve the integrity of the public sector.

The PSD said in a statement on Tuesday (June 28) that “the allegations made go beyond private matters and extend to the conduct and integrity of the Government and our public institutions”.

Since we are talking about “the conduct and integrity of the Government and our public institutions” – can the PSD address the following questions:-
Who made the decision to conduct the poll?

Is the Prime Minister and the head of the civil service aware that the poll is being conducted?

1.What is the PSD’s understanding of “conflict of interest” since the PSD is in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)?

2.Will the results of the poll be made public?

3.To whom will the results of the poll be reported to?

4.As to “The statement comes after screenshots of the poll were circulated on Facebook and social media, with some people questioning whether public resources should be used to conduct a poll on “family matters”.

5.Responding to media queries about the poll, the PSD said: “We are polling public officers to understand their sentiments on this issue as it involves the integrity of our public institutions, of which they are an important part”” – can the PSD also address the following questions:-

6.Given the serious concerns expressed in Singapore as well as international about the “secret” ministerial committee – why is the PSD conducting a “secret” poll, without informing Singaporeans?

7. Did the PSD even consider that conducting such a poll may further damage Singapore’s reputation in respect of “abuse of power”, use of public resources for “private matters”, etc?

8. With regard to “It added that it periodically polls public officers on issues that matter to them as part of “stakeholder engagement”” – when was the last time that the PSD conducted such a polling exercise and for what issue, and how man of such polls were done in the last year, last five years, etc?
In respect of “In one question, respondent’s were asked for their views on the matter.

9. The multiple choice answers included an option saying the incident would have a long-term impact on Singapore’s reputation, and one saying the country’s reputation will recover “after the incident has calmed down”” – does the PSD not realise that such an exercise may actually add to the damage to the “long-term impact on Singapore’s reputation”, hinder the “country’s reputation’s” recovery, and fuel the storm rather than “calming it down”?

10. As to “Another question asked public officers the extent to which the dispute has affected their confidence in the integrity and impartiality of Singapore’s public institutions and the public service” – did the PSD consider the possibility that such a poll may further affect and diminish Singaporeans’ (and civil servants too) “confidence in the integrity and impartiality of Singapore’s public institutions and the public service”?

11. With regard to “while a third question asked whether or not they agreed that the issue should be addressed in Parliament” – why is the PSD asking this when “PM Lee had (already) said earlier that he will deliver a ministerial statement in Parliament on July 3 to refute his siblings’ “baseless accusations””?
Some of my friends say – “if already so much of the ruckus in the past 10 days or so isn’t making much sense and only making Singapore the laughing stock of the world – this latest PSD’s polling exercise may really “top it off”!

Good questions. If the MPs do their job on 3 Jul, LHL has a lot of answering to do
 
Top