Time for a new formula?

Explore a way to de-link property tax from rental values driven by foreigners

Dec 30, 2010

Letter from Thian Tai Chew

WITH effect from Jan 1, 2011, Singapore's property tax will shift from a flat 4-per-cent rate to a system of progressive property tax rates based on Annual Values (AV) of these properties. As a result, I will save about 8 per cent of the property tax payable for next year. Am I happy with this saving?

Let's look at the formula for calculating the property tax rate. It is based on the annual value of your property.

According to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS) circular, the AV is the estimated market rent if the property were to be let. It is determined based on the market rentals of comparable properties.

It is no secret that the rental market in Singapore is heavily influenced by the demand from foreigners working in Singapore. The more foreigners we attract here, the higher the demand for rental housing and, hence, higher rental rates.

It begs the question then - why should property tax be tagged to the influx of foreigners coming into Singapore ?

I am not against paying property tax, but I am against the link of property tax to the demand by foreigners coming to Singapore to work.

These foreigners, most of whom would go for rental housing, do not pay property tax. It is fair to assume that landlords would have already priced the property tax into the rental, hence jacking up the rental prices, which in turn would jack up the property tax as the AVs are now higher.

It is a vicious cycle and as long as we continue to attract more foreigners into Singapore, the only outcome for such a formula is that the property tax would go higher and higher.

As an owner-occupied property owner who does not partake of the rental market, I do not see why I should be taxed based on the actions of other people who are renting out their property.

Since the Government has explicitly mentioned that attracting foreign talents will remain as one of our national policies, the property tax moving forward is going only one way - up.

I do not see the rationale for paying property tax that is linked to the outcome of another unrelated policy.

It's time for the IRAS to explore a formula that would de-link the property tax from rental values that are heavily influenced by the influx of foreigners.

So the answer to my earlier question: Am I happy with the tax savings for next year? Yes, any saving is always good, but I do not like what is coming beyond 2011.

[Eh, goondu. Owner-occupier pays concessionary tax. Owners who rent or sublets their flats pay 10%. Your 4% is a concessionary rate.

More importantly, the annual value is ridiculously undervalued! (don't tell IRAS!) You look at your property tax bill and tell me you will rent your flat for annual rent equivalent to the AV assessed by IRAS.

Three room HDB flats have AVs of less than $7000 (that's about $550 per month. FOR THE WHOLE FLAT! Four rooms' AV is less than $9000 or less than $750 pm for the whole flat. This is SERIOUS under-valuation. But I don't believe IRAS is stupid. I believe this is another way they give tax concession to home owners.

So don't ask stupid questions about new formula for property tax. You are already getting a GREAT DEAL!

Idiot!]

Upsized out of a lucky draw

Dec 29, 2010

ENTICED by a "Say Aloha to the teriyaki chicken sandwich" promotion - and a chance to win a holiday in a lucky draw - outside the Carl's Jr restaurant at Jurong Point, my wife and I decided to try out the new teriyaki chicken sandwich for lunch on Monday.

When placing our orders, the counter employee asked if I would like to upsize my meal and I agreed on the upsize and I added on another pack of onion rings.

After being served our meal, we realised we were not given any entry coupon for the lucky draw. I then approached the counter and the manager asked to see my receipt. He said because I had upsized my meal, I did not qualify for the draw.

Surely this should be clearly stated so that customers would know not to upsize and pay extra if they do not want to be deprived of the lucky draw opportunity.

Alvin Alexis

[Ok. Granted Carl's Jr marketing and promotion is a little weird. This is a completely strange way of running a promotion. BUT if your choice of lunch is decided by lucky draws and freebies... you don't really know what you want do you?

Put another way. When you upsized your meal, you became a premium customer to Carl's Jr who then felt that it was not nice to have their premium customer's particulars added to the list that they were going to sell to telemarketers. Therefore they didn't give you your lucky draw coupon where you will have a 1 in 8 million chance of winning a holiday (terms and conditions apply, holiday must commence no earlier than the 26 Dec 2011 and be completed before the 31st Dec. Action figures sold separately. Batteries not included. Actual holiday may differ from illustration. Alcoholic beverages are chargeable. Offer void where prohibited by law. Prizes are not exchangeable or refundable), and will definitely be harassed by 352 telemarketers over the next 2 months.

You got the better deal.]

Japan's Strategic Position

Dec 25, 2010

Don't shunt history into a corner

I REFER to the commentary by academic Heng Yee Kuang ('Best not to push Japan into a corner'; Tuesday).

Japan is not a landlocked country. It has access in all directions - by air or sea.

[Thus implying that Japan cannot be cornered and has strategic maneuverability. Which is stupid. Move where? So someone attacks from the east, and Japan moves it's entire force to the west? Someone invades your exclusive economic zone in the south, and you just move your fishing fleet to the north? Dumb.]

After the recent incident involving a collision between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol boat near the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the 'sleeping giant' suddenly woke up and started announcing new changes in defence policy.

Its focus seems to be to ensure that this claimed territory in the East China Sea remains under Japanese control.

So, where did the writer find evidence of China trying to corner Japan?

[China making a big incident out of it, demanding the release of the Chinese captain charged with ramming the Japanese defence force vessel, demanding restitution, threatening sanctions, cutting off rare earth minerals exports to Japan, etc. And by the way, the article was not just about China. The article pointed out that Japan is being pressured by China and Russia, with N.Korea as a bit player. That the writer focus only on China shows a flawed and biased reading of the article. ]

The article quoted a Japanese academic's concern that 'Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again'. Re-fight China? Who invaded whom in the past? Let us not forget history.

[And here the penny dropped. Yes, since Japan invaded China and committed atrocities such as the Nanking massacre, this now entitles China to get what's fair, eh?]

Chen Sen Lenn


Dec 21, 2010

Best not to push Japan into a corner

By Heng Yee Kuang

JAPAN'S announcement of sweeping changes to its defence postures last week reflects mounting strategic unease at being trapped in the increasingly rough neighbourhood of North East Asia. This sense of multiple threats bearing down on the nation from various directions was conveyed by Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who said: 'Our country is encircled by severe security situations...'

To begin with, there were the 'pincer movements' by China and Russia ganging up to press home their advantage. A joint statement released by Presidents Hu Jintao and Dmitri Medvedev in September soon after the Senkaku/Diaoyu trawler incident had both sides agreeing to support each other's 'core interests', including national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity (code words for territorial disputes in Japanese eyes). Coincidentally or not, President Medvedev then became the first Russian leader to visit the disputed Kurile islands shortly afterwards. While unrelated, North Korea's shelling of the South's Yeonpyeong island further stoked the feeling of a Japan under siege.

Putting the squeeze on Tokyo not only has the potential to awaken the sleeping giant, but can also backfire on Moscow and Beijing. In my discussions with leading academics, military officials and students in Tokyo, I found there was apprehension about how the Japanese people will react to such pressure. One young student said to me that he was very concerned about the nationalist backlash from the younger generation frustrated at Japan's weakness.

Although young Japanese are usually depicted as more interested in anime and manga than high politics, one Internet opinion poll earlier this month of 500 teens in junior high school rated the Senkaku clash as the news story of 2010.

More than its gaffes, the Naoto Kan Cabinet suffers heavily from a perception of its diplomatic weakness. Plummeting opinion polls are front-page headlines on leading dailies like the Asahi Shimbun.

A Fuji News Network survey showed the Cabinet's approval rating plunging to 21.8 per cent early this month. Protests denouncing both China and the Kan government have attracted crowds in the low thousands, a relatively large number in Japan. Cabinet Office data released last Sunday indicates the number of Japanese who feel favourable towards China has reached a low of 20 per cent, dropping 18.5 percentage points in just a year.

China was once viewed as more an opportunity than a threat. The previous Hatoyama administration came to power peddling the notion of closer ties with China and distancing Japan from America. However, China's recent assertiveness has pushed Tokyo back into Washington's embrace.

The new National Defence Programme Guidelines document employs the strongest language ever used to describe China's military modernisation and maritime activities. 'These movements, coupled with the lack of transparency in its military and security matters,' the document asserts, 'have become a matter of concern for the region and the international community.' The previous guideline in 2004 merely said Tokyo would be 'attentive' to China's future intentions.

As a result, Japan will now re-deploy forces to the remote south-west Nansei Shoto island group where China has territorial claims, abandoning its Cold War focus on a Soviet invasion of northern Hokkaido. More submarines, early warning radar systems and surface-to-ship missiles will be stationed closer to the disputed Senkaku islands to fill what the document calls a 'defence vacuum'. A second squadron of warplanes will also be added at Naha, Okinawa.

Despite its pacifist outlook, Japan's military is in fact larger than Britain's. It deploys the most advanced naval forces in the Pacific after the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. Japan also has one of the highest military budgets in the world. Deployments overseas have for years been testing the limits of the country's post- World War II pacifist Constitution.

Further provocation from Pyongyang, Beijing or Moscow will only provide more ammunition to those Japanese who are seeking to loosen the constitutional constraints on their country's military power. While no one seriously expects Japan to once again rampage across Asia, an expanded role for its technologically advanced Self-Defence Forces and a paradigm shift where Tokyo abandons engagement and confronts China directly is hardly in the interest of Beijing and Moscow.

Already, the latest guidelines hint at Japan's desire to break out of its 'encirclement' by courting allies such as Australia and South Korea. It should not be forgotten that Japan is considered widely to be a so-called 'virtual nuclear weapon state'. It can produce nuclear weapons relatively quickly.

A leading Japanese academic told me privately of his concern that Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again. Do China and Japan really need several major wars, like the European powers did, before finally establishing structures for peace and cooperation? Full-blown conflict is certainly not yet on the cards but driving Japan into a corner would be a short-sighted and counter-productive move.

The writer, a Singaporean, is assistant professor of international relations at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. He is now a visiting scholar at Waseda University in Tokyo.

[The basic point of the article as I understand it is that extra-legal (or outright illegal) strategies regarding disputed territories will only raise the temperature of the issues, and may eventually spill over into confrontation. The proper approach is to use established international dispute resolution processes to sort out disagreements. However, that is not route being taken at the moment. Attitudes and postures "backed" by historical grievances as implied by the letter-writer serves little purpose, except to perhaps justify those extra-legal activities and strategies.

Still, there is a right and wrong way to go about protecting one's interest... ST Editorial below summarises.]


EDITORIAL
Japan right and wrong on defence posture

ANY Japanese government would be mindful that raising the nation's military preparedness, however justified, will cause unease. First is the arms buildup in North Asia extending to the subcontinent and South-east Asia. Japan's latest defence review stressing a rapid-response capability will accelerate the race. A buildup is inevitable anyway to keep trade routes open, but this is slight mitigation when productive spending should have priority in societies moving towards middle-income status. Second, countries that bore the brunt of the Japanese imperial advance during the last war will wonder whether the post-war pacifism, which held when Japan was peerless in Asia, is starting to unravel with China having displaced it. Unlike in Germany, militarist instincts are alive among sections of the Japanese elite. Thus, the incomplete atonement for wartime acts and denials of history.

And yet, and yet. Japan may end up looking not unduly aggressive for the new defence doctrine of meeting contingencies rather than imagining an old-fashioned invasion, from Russia for instance. The surprise of the military reassessment out last Friday was that it had not been updated sooner. In the six years since the last review undertaken by the Liberal Democrats, economic strides made by other Asian nations concurrent with force modernisation had left Japan looking under-invested. Maritime and territorial disputes in the East and South China seas in which Japan is involved have been longstanding. But North Asia is a changed theatre with China and South Korea more at odds as they progress, and North Korea defying norms of rational conduct as it prepares for leadership change. Then there is China's unstoppable growth in all fields of contest. Japan's treaty linkages with the United States oblige Tokyo to relook its defence posture in the light of what is spoken of as China's 'assertiveness', as if this is not a natural progression of gathering strength.

This is all very clinical on paper. In practice, Japan has needlessly got off badly with China by declaring that its realignment of forces to the south near China, and its spending on surveillance and missile systems are on account of its neighbour. In helping the US retain mobility in the Pacific, Japan should be emphasising it is defending the peace. And that this is essential for economic growth and recovery across the world. Then there will be no cause for fresh Beijing-Tokyo tension, which has arisen as China has objected to being targeted. Japan ought to take an all encompassing approach in relations with China, to stress also political and cultural collaboration. And military ties need not be a contradiction.

Dos and don'ts when flagging cabs

Dec 23, 2010

I REFER to Mr Muhamad Noh Sapari's letter about errant cabbies ('Waiting in the rain as cabs whizz past'; Dec 7).

I have been a cabby for 10 years, and have had many experiences with passengers flagging down a cab at traffic lights, along bus lanes during operational hours or at times when stopping abruptly would cause serious accidents.

While it is not excusable not to stop, passengers and other road users' safety must come first, service second and fare third.

So let's be fair to all. If people want a safe ride home, flag down a cab at the correct spot, do it in advance, place your arms high and out, stay out of the bus lanes, keep a distance from big obstructing vehicles such as lorries and trucks and, more importantly, be patient.

Tan Ah Chuan

[Thank you Mr Tan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have seen passengers flag cabs at the last minute and I have seen brainless drivers screech to a halt with no notice just to pick up these passengers, causing accidents or near accidents. It is not unthinkable for the passengers to then abandon the cab for the next cab leaving the driver to deal with the accident. Of course the driver is at fault, but the passengers bear part of the blame too.

Finding a safe place to hail a cab is also important. I have seen passengers try to stop a cab in the middle of a junction! ]

Award merit bursaries with no strings attached

Dec 20, 2010

Bursary limit

MRS ELIZABETH NG: 'The Edusave Merit Bursary is given annually to students whose monthly household incomes are less than $4,000 and who rank within the top 25 per cent in terms of academic performance in their school. I find this unfair to students whose family incomes are above the income limit. All students need encouragement. Students whose household incomes are above $4,000 could be given a token in recognition of their efforts. These can be in the form of a collar pin, badge or certificate.'

Dec 22, 2010

I AGREE with Mrs Elizabeth Ng's comments on Monday ('Bursary limit') about the need to recognise students' efforts.

For the past few years, my children have been in the top 25 per cent in terms of academic performance in their school, but did not qualify for the Edusave Merit Bursary because our monthly household income is well above $4,000.

Since this is a scheme for students based on their academic performance, then eligibility should not be linked to their household income. The funds should be awarded to them with no strings attached.

The money can be credited into their Post-Secondary Education Account or their savings account for their future educational needs.

Ng Geok Hui (Madam)

[Bursuries are not scholarships. Scholarships are based purely on merit. Bursaries are intended to help needy students. So an income limit for eligibility is justifiable. Mdm Ng may argue for a higher income limit, but not no limit. Or if not limited by household income, then by other measures.

As for recognition, there was this comment:]

I am a parent myself and I don't agree that we should give awards for all students in the top 25% of the school. Most schools already award students for being top in the class. And bursaries are for the ones who need the financial help. Explain to your child that there are some who can't even afford to buy their own textbooks. Don't shelter them so much. Teach the child to be more civic minded.

Posted by: tiffangel at Wed Dec 22 13:35:10 SGT 2010

[Good for tiffangel! Sensible parent. Renews my faith that most parents are even-minded people.]

Stop the blame game

Dec 17, 2010

I CANNOT fully agree with Mr Sebastian Tan who put the blame on the players for the Lion's loss to Vietnam in the AFF Suzuki Cup ("Blame the players, not the coach"; Wednesday).

Was it not the coach's responsibility to ensure that the players were psychologically, physically, technically and tactically fit for the competition? If not, why did he not recommend that Singapore pull out of the tournament? Why did he promise that the team would make the final?

I am sure coach Raddy Avramovic has good reasons for his inability to get the team to the level he desired.

I am also sure the players have tonnes of excuses for their inept performance. But they are not really important even though some may be legitimate.

For Singapore sports to progress, the blaming must stop. There is nothing much the coaches and players can do by themselves. It is time for the sports authorities, including the Singapore National Olympic Council, the Singapore Sports Council and the national sports associations to collectively take responsibility.

Lim Teong Chin

[So you blame the sports authorities, the SNOC, SCC and NSA? How is this stopping the "blame game"? Sailing Singapore is an NSA, what responsibility have they got for the football team's shortcomings? And in assuming the coach and players have reasons (or excuses) for their failures, he is absolving them of blame (and so playing the blame game).

Instead of focusing on a specific failure, this idiot wants to expand to generalities. Yes, at generalities, it's everybody's fault. It's a wonder he stopped where he did and did not proceed to blame the govt and the PAP.

But hey, guess what? I'm sure they have good reasons, even legitimate ones for why they are not respionsible for the Football team's poor performance. Like, THEY ARE NOT THE FUCKING FOOTBALL TEAM.

Even if it is true that the sports hierarchy has some responsibility for the failures, the writer has not stated what these are. This forum letter is a waste of time and space. Must be slow news day.]

Picture perfect harmony

Dec 15, 2010

(From left) Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Venerable Fa Rong and Syed Isa sharing a light moment at an event to honour the mufti with the Inter-Religious Organisation award. -- ST FILE PHOTO

I AM an American living in Indonesia and over the past 30 years, have made dozens of trips to Singapore.

The Prime News photograph yesterday (above) of Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Buddhist monk the Venerable Fa Rong and Mufti Syed Isa Mohamed Semait nearly moved me to tears ('Tributes flow as mufti gets award').

I wish my native country as a whole could demonstrate the religious tolerance that Singapore has been able to cultivate.

Certainly there are good, tolerant people everywhere, and the United States has many who think like I do.

But in Singapore, it is the norm, and immediately observable everywhere you go. On a daily basis, I see Christian, Muslim and Hindu office workers sharing a meal at a kopitiam (coffee shop), exchanging smiles or pleasantries on the street or otherwise kindly extending help to one another.

In all my trips here, I have not once witnessed religion-fuelled hostility or prejudice.

My travels have taken me to all corners of the world, yet I have never found a country that comes even close to the religious and spiritual maturity that Singaporeans demonstrate towards one another.

Many letters complain about life in Singapore, but from an outsider's perspective, what a beautifully pluralistic and enviable society Singapore has.

In many ways, and especially in their tolerance for one another, Singaporeans are a beacon to the world.

Jack Blaylock

[Cynical Singaporeans will immediately jump on this and say how much of this may be posed photo-ops and how the facade may not reflect the truth. Certainly I feel a little discomfited to hear the writer say that we have spiritual maturity.

Well, maybe that might not be the correct phrase, but I think I understand what he means. Maybe we are not 100% honest, or sincere. Maybe we do harbour little niggling resentment or disdain for other faiths, but at least we have enough respect to show tolerance, and enough understanding to show mutual respect, and enough courtesy to keep our less flattering opinions to ourselves.

A little courtesy goes a long way. Respecting boundaries and agreeing to live and let live is the way to go forward.

So yes, compared to many other countries, Singapore has it a lot better and has a lesson for many other countries.]

Update: 12 Mar 2011.

A video in support of the letter writer. A muslim tries to pray while Christians taunt and mock him. So different from Egypt where Christians protected the Muslims when they prayed from pro-Mubarak forces trying to break up the protesters in Tahrir Square.

Update: Mar 22, 2011

Florida pastor burns Quran

GAINESVILLE (FLORIDA): A controversial American evangelical preacher on Sunday oversaw the burning of a copy of the Quran in a small Florida church after finding the Muslim holy book 'guilty' of crimes.

The burning was carried out by pastor Wayne Sapp under the supervision of pastor Terry Jones, who last September drew sweeping condemnation over his plan to ignite a pile of Qurans on the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Sunday's event was presented as a trial in which the Quran was found 'guilty' and 'executed'. The jury deliberated for about eight minutes.

The holy book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the centre of the church, and Mr Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter. The book burned for around 10 minutes while some onlookers posed for photos.

Mr Jones had drawn trenchant condemnation from many people, including top US leaders, over his plan to burn the Qurans last September.

He did not carry out his plan then and vowed he never would, saying he had made his point.
But this time, he said he had been 'trying to give the Muslim world an opportunity to defend their book', but did not receive any answer. He said he felt that he could not have a real trial without a real punishment.

While there were public protests against Mr Jones' Sept 11 activities, this event was largely ignored. The event was open to the public, but fewer than 30 people attended.

Ms Jadwiga Schatz, who came to show support for Mr Jones, expressed concern that Islam was growing in Europe. 'These people, for me, are like monsters,' she said. 'I hate these people.'

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Supplementary Retirement Scheme works best for the rich

Dec 5, 2010

I refer to the article, 'Saving a little today will go a long way' (Nov14), which shows how the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) helps taxpayers save on taxes.

SRS works best for high-income earners. For the rest of us, the savings are uncertain and the scheme can even result in some paying more taxes, as I will explain.

SRS contributions are tax-free up to $11,475 per year, but only for money that goes in. Unlike the Central Provident Fund, you must pay taxes - on half the money - when it comes out. Withdrawals are over a 10-year period beginning at the statutory retirement age, which is now 62.

Why does SRS sometimes result in little or no tax savings? There are two key reasons.

First, the article explains that withdrawals before age 62 entail a 5per cent penalty plus taxes on 100 per cent of the money withdrawn, which 'includes whatever capital gains you might have made from your investments using your SRS funds'.

Actually, non-early withdrawals also entail a capital gain tax. SRS also taxes dividends and interest. All of these are normally tax-free.

Second, the article says: 'For a person with a taxable income of $100,000, a $10,000 contribution works out to him paying $1,400 less tax based on current tax rates.'

Yes, but that is only one side of it. It's the tax savings when you put money in. How about when you take the money out? Could you pay even more taxes then?

Yes. Suppose $10,000 per year goes into the SRS from age 22. At 7per cent interest, it will grow to $2million by age 62 and one would withdraw roughly $200,000 per year for 10 years and pay taxes on half, which is $100,000 per year.

[If you're making $100k at age 22. I think that qualifies as rich.If you can consistently get 7% interest for 40 years, you are incredibly savvy investor. This is about what the highly risky mini-Bonds were offering. Now either 7% returns incurs that kind of risk, or the mini-Bonds were wrongly assessed in terms of risk. But at this point there are few investments that can steadily offer that kind of returns. And if you can withdraw $200k per year for your retirement out of a nest egg of $2m, I think you rank in the well-off if not rich category. Most likely, a 22 year old will not be making enough to contribute to the SRS. There are too many discretionary expenditure at that stage in life. Even at 35, most people may not have the means to save to the SRS consistently. But never mind.]

It incurs total taxes of $7,100 x 10 years = $71,000, which exceeds $1,400 x 40 years = $56,000 in tax savings.

[I don't know how he arrives at $7,100 taxes per year for 10 years, but for a so-called financially-savvy adviser, he totally ignores concepts of present values and future values. Put another way: Would you agree to have $56k now which you don't have to repay for 40 years, and at the end of 40 years, you will pay back $71k in fixed installments of 10 years. Ok, that's not exactly fair either. It should be $1,400 per year for 40 years, after which you pay back $7,100 per year for 10 years. Note that this $71,000 is based on his computation that said saver/investor will turn $400,000 to $2m over 40 years based on an investment return of 7%. I suspect that the figure will work out to less than that for most people because they will save for less than 40 years, and their returns will be less than 7%. ]

Why? The reason comes back to SRS taxing your capital gains, dividends and interest income.

In general, SRS works best for the rich. It offers a good chance of paying lower taxes if your tax bracket is (i) high when the money goes in, (ii) low when it comes out and (iii) if you invest late in life in low-yield securities, such as bonds.

Larry Haverkamp

[I usually like his analysis of financial and investment issues, but this is just biased and unrealistic. Perhaps he has an agenda - people are foregoing investing with him in order to squirrel away their savings in SRS? I don't know.

A rebuttal of sorts below.]

Dec 19, 2010

Why SRS accounts are a good way to save

While some dispute benefits of supplementary retirement scheme, it's possible to enjoy good return on investments

By Goh Eng Yeow

Around this time of the year as the annual bonus payout approaches, I find myself promoting a little-known savings programme known as the supplementary retirement scheme (SRS).

This is a scheme established in 2001 to complement the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which allows a saver to put up to $11,475 a year into a special account that can be opened at DBS Bank, OCBC Bank or United Overseas Bank and enjoy a tax relief on his contribution.

As Singaporeans live longer and healthier lives, relying solely on their CPF to keep them comfortably retired during their golden years may not be sufficient, especially if a big chunk of it is used to service monthly housing instalments.

What SRS offers as an incentive to savers is the tax savings they get from the money they put away into an SRS account.

Let me explain.

If you have a taxable income of $100,000 and you put away $10,000 into your SRS account, you can enjoy savings of $1,400 on your income tax bill the following year.

It is a tidy sum not to sneeze at, especially if you have the discipline to keep squirrelling away the same sum into your SRS account every year.

After 10 years, you will reap considerable savings of $14,000 on your income tax and that is not including any interest or investment returns which you might have earned from those savings.

After reaching the mandatory retirement age - now fixed at 62 - you can withdraw up to $40,000 tax-free from your SRS a year.

This works out to a maximum tax-free sum of $400,000, as SRS withdrawals can be staggered over a period of 10 years after retirement.

Data furnished by the Government shows that the effort to popularise the SRS is slowly bearing fruit.

Between 2007 and last year, the number of SRS account holders jumped by 12,322 - or 30 per cent - to 53,656, as more Singaporeans learnt about the scheme and decided to sign up.

This is a significant improvement over earlier years when the number of account openings languished at a sluggish pace.

Still, this number is a far cry from the 400,000-odd taxpayers, earning more than $60,000 a year, and who may reap some tax savings by putting some money into an SRS account.

When a saver squirrels away some money into an SRS account, he does not need to keep it locked up in a cash deposit. He can use the money in the SRS account to buy unit trusts, insurance policies or even stocks listed on the Singapore Exchange.

But the few times I had written to raise public awareness of the SRS, I received feedback from a few disgruntled readers who disputed the benefits it bestowed on the ordinary saver.

One reader noted that there was a 5 per cent penalty charge for early withdrawal. The sum withdrawn would also be treated as part of his taxable income for that year.

Doesn't this smack of a disguised capital gains tax, he asked.

There was another reader who griped that the SRS was useless for savers who were not interested in buying financial products from banks.

'If you already plan to buy things like unit trusts from that pretty girl in the bank, you can consider putting money into SRS, enjoy some tax savings and make her very happy for closing the sale and getting a commission out of it,' he wrote.

A third reader raised the intriguing possibility that a successful investor may actually end up footing an even bigger tax bill on the monies he withdraws from his SRS account after retirement.

While not disputing the merits of the points they raised, I can use only my experience as an SRS account-holder to point out some of the benefits.

I have been diligently putting money into my SRS account every year since its inception.

Going through the SRS data furnished by the Government, this decision is hardly surprising. I belong to the age group, between 36 and 55 years, which form 70 per cent of all SRS contributors.

In general, wage-earners in this age group would have a steady job and a steady income, with some cash to spare - after servicing their home mortgages and car loans.

After 10 years, I can attest to the considerable sum I reaped on the tax savings I enjoyed from the SRS contributions.

The incremental benefits add up. The total tax savings that I received over the past decade were sufficient for me to make the maximum SRS contribution of $11,475 for this year - and still have cash left over.

And unlike some SRS account holders who complain that they are lured into buying unsuitable insurance policies or financial products, I am glad to report that my experience has, so far, been a happy one.

In my 10 years of putting money into my SRS account, I have never once been pursued by an insurance agent or financial adviser on how to invest the funds.

Partly, this is because I know how I want to invest the money. That is surely the maxim which any investor should apply on all his investments, and not simply those related to SRS.

As I have no intention of making any premature withdrawal from my SRS account prior to retirement and attracting the 5 per cent penalty charge, I can afford to take a long-term view on selecting the investments. This has served me well.

My SRS account now has a couple of blue chips that were accumulated when they fell to attractive levels during the 2003 Sars crisis and the more recent global financial crisis two years ago.

I am also perfectly happy to keep the SRS contributions parked in cash in some years when I could not find any stocks worth my while to invest in.

Despite the market upheavals over the years, I have enjoyed an annual return of 12 per cent on my SRS investments. All in, my SRS account has outperformed the benchmark Straits Times Index in the past decade.

But unless I enjoy an extraordinary stroke of good luck in my investments, it is unlikely that I would ever hit the $400,000 tax-free savings ceiling limit for the SRS account by the time I retire.

I believe that this is an experience which most SRS savers are likely to share, since they keep their SRS monies in ultra-safe investments like blue chips, bonds and insurance products.

For us, the benefits in having an SRS account are obvious.

What is needed is for the scheme to be given a makeover like a catchy name change to attract more savers to its fold.

engyeow@sph.com.sg

Alternative Medicine - the debate

Dec 2, 2010

Stick to mainstream medicine till there's proof

MR RICHARD Seah's letter ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19) misses the point made by the writers whom he criticises (Dr Choo Su Pin and Dr Toh Han Chong, 'Don't make cancer harder than it is'; Nov 11).

Mr Seah targets the conclusions of the writers without dealing with their reasoning.

The crux of Dr Toh and Dr Choo's letter was that bioresonance therapy was not an 'alternative' treatment, but rather could actually be risky; patients were either overly frightened by the less than accurate diagnostics of bioresonance or worse, forsook conventional cancer treatment therapies for an unproven one, thereby giving up a potential cure.

Far from being dismissive and close-minded, they did acknowledge in their letter that 'there may be some treatments and supplements that may indeed be proven beneficial one day' but qualifed it by stating that 'these cannot be oversold beyond what is known about their true benefits'.

Dr Ang Peng Tiam's take on anti-cancer diets ('Food for thought'; Nov 18) should be taken in context. He was merely warning against giving up a regular diet in favour of other diets especially because chemotherapy requires adequate nutrition, and not arguing against alternative medicine.

The point these other writers were trying to make is this: Unless and until such alternative treatments are proven to be safe, effective and accurate, we should not choose them over conventional ones. Doing so could cause us either unnecessary worry or additional suffering that leads to premature death.

Tang Shangjun

Mainstream medicine isn't a cure-all...

I HAVE been a practising family doctor since 1994 and seen my fair share of chronic debilitating diseases and cancers causing much suffering and death over the years.

Often, I find myself helpless in preventing the onset of such illnesses or providing relief to my patients even with advanced Western medicine.

[Yes. Everybody dies. Not every illness can be prevented or cured. You are not god. Pain and suffering is part of life. Death is also part of life. If you are a doctor because you think you can save everyone, you will indeed feel helpless, and you will indeed find that even advanced medicine will not save all your patients. If you think you can save everyone, your medical training is sorely inadequate. If you think salvation is in alternative medicine, please switch and stop practicing western medicine.]

Our body has a remarkable capacity to heal itself, much more quickly than people realise, when we address the underlying causes of illnesses. And for many people, the choices they make each day and what they eat each day will determine their health in the long run.

[I have no disagreement with the above paragraph... within reason. But if the lungs were punctured, or one was acute appendicitis, please do not tell the patient to rest at home and let the body heal itself. I'm all for self-medicating, or the power of a good rest and yes, I think I should eat more healthily, and yes, my diet and life choices affects my health. But these are not arguments for alternative medicine.]

We should not begrudge those who prefer a vegetarian diet and seek alternative treatment. It is their choice and who are we to decide for them when we don't even know ourselves?

In short, we are all learning. I remember years ago when traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was not recognised by medical practitioners. But now, there is a TCM practice even in major hospitals.

[I seriously wonder about the efficacy of that.]

[April 2016 comment: If we agree that the human body has a remarkable ability to heal itself, then sometimes the best thing you can do is to let the body heal itself. It is more natural, less intrusive, and if the body fights off an illness, it gets stronger and immunity in the future. If so, the best thing doctors can do is generally to let the illness "run its course" - which is simply letting the body heal itself.

However, when people go to a doctor, they want a "cure". Or more correctly, they want relief. They want the pain and discomfort to go away. Here's the thing, a significant portion of the effect of medicine is "placebo" effect. And most of the medicine you get from your doctors provide symptomatic relief - pain-killers, fever suppression, nasal decongestant, etc. Only antibiotics are actually targeting the cause of your illness. 

Much of TCM medication or herbs are intended to work over the long term - strengthening one's immunity, and fighting off disease. However, most of TCM treatments have not been objectively proven as efficacious. But it doesn't matter.

If most illnesses can be allowed to "run its course" without undue harm to the patient or the general public, then it does not matter if the patient is treated by western medicine, TCM, or self-medicates/rest at home. 

Channelling patients to TCM relieves the hospital of demand for western doctors. Sure. you can read that to mean that TCM is recognised by medical practitioners.]

As doctors, we should keep an open mind as there is always more to learn.

Dr Benny Lim Jit Biaw

...No, but it's the be-all, unlike alternative healing

I REFER to the letter by Mr Richard Seah ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19).

Mr Seah's polemic against Dr Andy Ho's article ('Sending out the wrong signals'; Nov 6) completely misses the point and grossly oversimplifies the view of allopathic medicine on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Mr Seah's contention that Dr Ho and Dr Ang Peng Tiam ('Food for thought'; Nov 18) displayed 'rudeness and insensitivity' by dismissing CAM as pseudoscience fails to take into consideration the duties of the two medical men.

Medical professionals are accountable only to the health and well-being of the patient. 'Culture' and political correctness take a backseat when providing information concerning patient care. Mr Seah's implied assertion that doctors should permit CAM on grounds of sensitivity thus, holds no water.

[Good point.]

Doctors acknowledge that the patient has autonomy in matters of his health and is free to choose his choice of therapy. This does not preclude doctors from speaking out against quackery and 'snake oil' salesmen brazenly promoting a panacea that provides little benefit beyond a placebo effect. Doctors must provide necessary information verified by the scientific process for patients to make informed choices.

Mr Seah implied that CAM holds more value than allopathic medicine is wont to give. However, CAM is a body of unverified practices that have questionable outcomes and doubtful methodologies.

Homeopathy, for example, has long resisted the golden test of efficacy - the double blind trial. Mr Seah's argument that 'qi' and other pseudoscientific concepts in CAM are 'holistic' is a tired argument raised countless times. It is puzzling that the public demands drug trials and testing for drugs but yet does not demand the same rigour from CAM.

Certainly, not all aspects of CAM are worthless. Pharmaceuticals recognise the value of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) - for example Artemisinin, a first-line antimalarial derived from herbs. However, the fact that once CAM has been accepted by the scientific and medical community, it becomes 'mainstream' rather than 'alternative' seems to fly over CAM proponents' heads.

Singapore has come a long way in the field of science and it is precisely because of its 'advanced medical technology' that old practices that have little footing in science are abandoned.

Oon Ming Liang

Beware, be very aware of mumbo jumbo...

I AM writing in response to Mr Richard Seah's letter ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19).

While I agree with Mr Seah that there are indeed other traditional forms of medical practices that have been passed down through the generations in different cultures, one thing must be made clear: If these practices are not scientifically proven, they cannot be considered as treatments to be endorsed.

Mr Seah quoted bioresonance as an example in his letter, criticising mainstream doctors for dismissing this as mumbo jumbo. The fact of the matter is that it has been scientifically proven that it is no more effective than a placebo; that is, it would be equally effective as tap water.

There is no scientific basis for its efficacy; just your imagination. Yes, the mind is a wonderful tool and has been able to help heal the body, as shown by Professor V.S. Ramachandran in his research on the phantom limb; yet to attribute the mind's powerful healing effects to bioresonance, or some other mumbo jumbo, is irresponsible.

I am not saying that mainstream medicine is infallible. However, there is a reason why there are exacting standards to prove the efficacy of a treatment before it becomes adopted as mainstream. This is to protect unsuspecting citizenry from quack treatments, regardless of whether the doctor has published a book or not. If a treatment has not undergone peer review and trials, it cannot be considered responsible treatment.

Ian Dyason

...Sure, but doctors should try a dose of humility

I REFER to the letter by Mr Richard Seah ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19) and couldn't agree more with him.

I suffered from a chronic gastric condition for 20 years. I was treated by both general practitioners and specialists in both government and private clinics. I was put through all kinds of tests and prescribed many medicines... but these did not improve my condition.

A friend introduced me to bioresonance therapy last year and my health has since improved.

Instead of criticising and making negative comments about alternative medicine, why aren't these professionals in medicine humbling themselves to find out why people are not sticking to conventional treatments but seeking alternative ones instead?

Lim Swee Har (Ms)

[I'm glad BRT "worked" for you. But as Dr Benny Lim and Mr Ian Dyason noted, the the human body has great restorative powers, and the human mind too. Please consider the case cited by the oncologists - one a false diagnosis of gastric cancer by BRT, scaring the woman into expensive medical test and procedures only to prove that she has no cancer.

If someone told you that rubbing a magic stone over your abdomen everyday for 2 weeks would cure your gastric, and it really happened, would you believe that the stone was magic? Or would you want to see the magic stone heal other people?]

Nov 25, 2010

Alternative medicine unsafe? Not true

MAINSTREAM medical doctors routinely warn that complementary and alternative medicine can be dangerous, the latest instance being Monday's report about hypnotherapy ("When you wake, you will excel in school").

In that report, psychiatrist Brian Yeo warned that "hypnotherapists have the power to elicit information that the subject may not ordinarily want to reveal".

I believe hypnotherapists will attest that such an assertion is untrue. If indeed hypnotherapy has such powers, the police and security forces might as well use it to elicit confessions from suspected criminals and terrorists.

[In this case, I would say that Mr Seah has a point. The powers of hypnotherapy is overstated by Brian Yeo. I would not be surprised if he was misquoted by the reporters. But if he wasn't he really should be ashamed of himself for saying such stupid things.]

In reality, a person cannot be hypnotised against his will. One hypnotherapist explained to me: "If a person has no desire to stop smoking, I cannot use hypnotherapy to make him stop."

Dr Yeo also warned that "anything that has the power to do good also has the power to do the not-so-good".

This is a general statement that applies to anything and everything - including psychiatry.

An Internet search for "harm of psychiatry" will throw up many reports and medical studies about the damage done by psychiatric drugs and other forms of psychiatric treatment.

Ditto if you do a search for "harm of medicine". Studies of iatrogenic illnesses - caused by medical treatment - show that in medically advanced countries like the United States, medical care is the third leading cause of death.

By contrast, complementary and alternative medicine rarely cause harm. Insurance companies know this. They charge complementary and alternative medicine practitioners much lower premiums for professional indemnity insurance.

Richard Seah

[Partly it is because the proper authorities would not allow untrained, unscientific practitioners near deadly or potentially dangerous equipment, devices and ingredients. If I say my alternative medicine involves placing my hands on the patient's head and letting my qi flow into him to cure him, I probably won't need malpractice insurance. If my alternative medicine involves putting the patient in a tub of milk and applying an electric current through him, or if involves cutting open the patient in order to massage the pancreas to stimulate the flow of qi, the authorities will probably be down on me like a ton of bricks, and no insurance company should want to insure me.

So treatments like BRT where the equipment is no more dangerous than an ECG/EEG machine, insurance companies will be as glad to take your money as you are prepared to take the money of your gullible victims... I mean patients.]

The original article, and the letter from Cancer specialists that started the debate.

Nov 6, 2010

DAEDALUS
Sending out the wrong signals

By Andy Ho

SEVERAL non-physicians are offering 'bioresonance' as a cure-all for ills ranging from allergies and addictions to autism and cancers.

All for $150 to $300 for one to 1-1/2 hours at a device that looks like any oscilloscope you might find in a physics lab.

Recently, a Bedok general practitioner called Dr Erwin Kay was censured by the Singapore Medical Council for 'treating' patients with the device. He was fined $5,000 for professional misconduct.

But while bioresonance is not accepted as a method of medical treatment that trained physicians may use, it is perfectly legal for non-physicians to offer it.

In the United States, by contrast, the extravagant claims that these operators make for bioresonance may see them hauled off to court.

For instance, in October 2002, a bogus cancer cure guru, David L. Walker, had to settle with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which works to prevent consumers from being defrauded, had taken him to court for claiming that he could cure cancer with his bioresonance machine.

What practitioners like Mr Walker claim their 'remedy' can do is based on the unproven premise that cells in the human body have a natural vibration or resonance. Hence, bio-resonance. That is, they vibrate or resonate at 'healthy frequencies' whereas unhealthy cells supposedly do so at different frequencies.

It follows, therefore, that healthy frequencies should be applied to ill bodies to bring them into balance once again. Such rebalancing apparently would free unhealthy cells of unspecified toxins accumulated in the course of ill health.

What is needed, then, is a device that can detect these differences in frequencies, determine which organs are ill and then deliver opposite waves to 'cancel out' the unhealthy frequencies. This is where the bioresonance device comes in.

In use, the electrodes linked to the device are applied to the patient's skin to supposedly diagnose one's conditions. The electrodes send out electrical signals that perform their 'wave interference' work adroitly, thus leading to a rebalancing of frequencies.

The stated frequency range at which rebalancing occurs is said to vary greatly from 10 Hz to 150,000 Hz. Computerised data recording goes on even as the electrodes emit their healing frequencies.

Computer power is also used to analyse the data and interpret the results to give an indication of the patient's health.

Signal intensity is then varied according to these analyses, which may also direct the practitioner to focus the electrodes on a specific part of the anatomy where treatment is particularly needed. Of course, several sessions are needed to achieve re-balancing and healing.

There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to support this gobbledegook. The evidence that does exist utterly refutes its theory and practice.

In a randomised, double-blind trial involving children in Davos, Switzerland, who had an allergic skin condition called atopic dermatitis, bioresonance was found to have no curative effect at all.

In a separate trial, bioresonance electrodes were tested for accuracy in the diagnosis of allergies to house dust mites or cat dander. Their accuracy was compared to that of the standard skin-prick test used by dermatologists. There was absolutely no correlation between the two sets of results.

A similar trial published in the British Medical Journal in January 2001 also showed that the bioresonance machine failed to diagnose skin allergies.

Since these are not life-threatening conditions, perhaps the practice of bioresonance is quite harmless. Not so, however, when it is also claimed to cure cancer.

Though there have been no clinical trials to test this claim, it is based on completely erroneous science. Advocates argue that the bioresonance device can kill cancer cells by releasing tumour suppressor genes that have become 'suppressed'. Alternatively, or in addition, it is said to attenuate hyperactive oncogenes or genes that cause cancer.

Actually, cancer arises when mutations develop in these genes, not because they are suppressed or become hyperactive, respectively. Once mutations have developed in them, genes cannot be restored to their previously normal state.

The p53 gene helps to regulate when a particular type of cell will divide in two. It also leads defective cells to 'commit suicide'. But when p53 mutates, it can no longer do these things, so cancer develops.

But bioresonance advocates claim that p53 is 'suppressed', not mutated, in cancer cells. For this reason, it is argued, bioresonance can be used to reinvigorate p53, thus curing the cancer.

But genomics studies show p53 is mutated, not suppressed, in cancers.

In sum, bioresonance is junk science. Advocates may trot out testimonials from satisfied customers, but testimonials are not data. Its efficacy can be proven only with trustworthy data obtained from rigorous trials with blinded controls.

But since anyone may make and sell these devices - that is, the technology can no longer be patented since it is widely available - no one has any incentive to invest in such studies.

Be that as it may, unless and until such studies are done, one should stay away from this 'therapy'.

andyho@sph.com.sg

----------
Nov 11, 2010
Don't make cancer harder than it is

AS MEDICAL oncologists, we were heartened to read Dr Andy Ho's column last Saturday ('Sending out the wrong signals').

It is a daily struggle trying to convince some desperate cancer patients that they are unwittingly giving away their time and money to mumbo jumbo like bioresonance therapy.

Earlier this year, a woman was referred to our centre after she was told by her bioresonance therapist that she had Stage 2 gastric cancer detected by bioresonance. In the end, she did not have any cancer but ended up with a needless CT scan, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, blood tests and a lot of unnecessary anxiety.

More recently, another patient asked a colleague if she should go for bioresonance therapy at a popular bioresonance therapy centre. One cannot say that bioresonance therapy and similar unproven therapies are harmless, as they can lead to unnecessary investigations, wastage of money and resources, and worse, patients refusing conventionally proven therapy with evidence of real benefits.

We remember a patient with potentially curable lymphoma who refused curative chemotherapy and went on a strict diet based on its recommendation as anti-cancer therapy.

He was only 35 years old and almost died from renal failure and other electrolyte abnormalities caused by the diet before he eventually died from the lymphoma itself.

It is frustrating, especially when patients refuse conventional therapy which can potentially achieve good outcomes and even cures in favour of unproven alternative therapies.

It is easy to exploit vulnerable cancer patients, create fear and promise unsubstantiated hope. Cancer patients and their relatives may willingly pay for unproven therapies with little or no solid basis in science, common sense or evidence but solely based on hearsay, if there is even a glimmer of hope for their often terminal illness.

While most alternative treatments, like mangosteen juice and wheatgrass, have not shown anti-cancer effects in humans, others like chelation therapy, oxygen therapy, coffee enemas and various antioxidant therapies have been reported to cause dangerous effects in patients.

We respect that there may be some treatments and supplements that may indeed be proven beneficial one day, but these cannot be oversold beyond what is known about their true benefits.

It is our responsibility and that of the media to educate the public and point people in the right direction and away from baseless cancer-treatment claims.


Dr Choo Su Pin and
Dr Toh Han Chong
National Cancer Centre Singapore

Alkaline ionised water

Nov 30, 2010

Show the science of alkali water

DR KOH Lam Son ("A different view on alkaline ionised water"; Nov 23) and Mr Kenneth Wong ("Making a case for alkaline water"; Nov 26) referred to the widely researched and well-documented beneficial effects of alkali water, which include the neutralisation of free radicals and a salutary antioxidant effect.

This appropriately brings up the topic of what constitutes good science and research.

Succinctly, the scientific approach demands the formulation of hypotheses, construction of theories, separation of fact from opinion, acceptance through public publication after peer review and the critical quality of experimental results being replicable.

The hypothesis that water can be turned into an acid-alkali/bi-component moiety is merely wishful, the theory behind it untenable and the support for it mainly testimonial in nature, without legitimate substantiation.

Supporters of alkali water can convincingly remove the blinkers from doubting cynics by providing for scrutiny, before the eyes of erudite chemistry professors, the science of alkali water. At the same time, by publishing irrefutable clinical data which would clinch their case conclusively, they can convert doctors that simply transforming a molecule of water can serendipitously turn it into an elixir for health.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

-------------

Nov 23, 2010

A different view on alkaline ionised water

I REFER to Dr Yik Keng Yeong's comments on alkaline ionised water ("Don't be taken in by 'benefits' of alkali water"; Nov 15).

The subject of alkaline ionised water has been widely researched in the last 50 years, mainly in Russia, Japan and South Korea. Scientific studies have generally concluded that it has beneficial alkalising and antioxidant effects.

Alkaline ionised water has been shown to neutralise free radicals and improve the control of many lifestyle-related chronic disease conditions associated with free radical stress - for example, diabetes, gout, obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol and rheumatoid arthritis.

I urge general physicians to consider using the water as a support measure in the management of patients with chronic diseases.

Dr Koh Lam Son


15 November 2010.

=========================================================

Don't be taken in by 'benefits' of alkali water

OF LATE, more and more patients have been approaching family practitioners asking whether the ingestion of alkali water has a salutary effect on health.

Insofar as I know, no reputable scientific or medical journal has recorded any beneficiary effects of alkaline or ionised water. The structure of the human digestive system is such that the potent acids of the stomach will quickly neutralise whatever small amount - if any - of alkali water made in an ionising machine and ingested orally.

At any rate, these acidic contents from the stomach, once emptied into the intestines, encounter the strong alkaline digestive juices secreted by the pancreas, so the visceral contents turn naturally alkaline.

Adding either acid or alkali to the diet is therefore superfluous as the physiology of the human body just does not need such meddling - acid-base homeostasis being judiciously regulated by the lungs and the kidneys.

Makers of alkali/ionising water machines exploit credulous patients by proclaiming their nostrum as a panacea for curing everything from hair loss to osteoporosis to cancer. Sadly, unsuspecting patients are hoodwinked by their claims which are impressively supported by reams of gobbledegook masquerading as science.

The health authorities should come out against this practice and arrest this trend among the gullible.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

[Call me skeptical, but read the first letter by Dr Koh. Basically, he says that alkaline ionised water can neutralise free radicals and improve control of lifestyle ailments. How does it do it is not clear. "Free radicals" have been tossed off as an explanation for cancer. There at least the theory has some explanation of the "mechanics" - free radicals being reactive disrupt normal cells turning them cancerous. How free radicals cause obesity, gout, high cholesterol, hypertension, etc, is not explained.

On the other hand, Dr Yik's letter is more logical. Alkali is caustic so you won't want to ingest water that is too alkaline. If there is no problem ingesting such things, you may want to chew on some alkaline batteries. A little alkaline is probably not a problem. But the mild alkalinity would be neutralised by stomach acid in the first place. Now if the point was to reduce heartburn, I can see how this might be a possible remedy. But the effect of mild alkaline water would be neutralised beyond the stomach.

Now both of them are doctors, so who should we believe. Moreover Dr Koh has a double postgrad degree - in O&G and general surgery. And he was a PAP MP for 2 terms. But he wandered into anti-ageing medicine when he retired. There is something to be said about a man in his sixties looking to stay young.

But all this pseudo-science/fraudulent medicine is selling hope. Not cures.]

Off-peak car licence system inadequate

Nov 20, 2010

I WOULD like to share my experience with the electronic day (e-Day) licence for off-peak cars (OPC).

As an OPC user, I have consistently purchased e-Day licences before midnight as required by the authorities.

I received a notice of offence for driving my car during restricted hours more than three months after the alleged offence. I checked online for my historical e-Day licence purchases but the system provided only one month's worth of historical data.

I have written an appeal for leniency and forwarded some questions about the system to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) but have not received any response for more than a month, despite repeated reminders. I have since paid the fine to avoid any further ordeal.

My experience has led me to question the efficiency of LTA in handling feedback from the public, as well as the efficacy of the e-Day licence system and its adequacy in providing information to the public to verify e-Day licence purchases.

Sim Lai Yong

[A refreshingly simple, concise, non-whining, reasonable letter about data availability and system processes.]

Our Buses

[One tourist complain, and two letters with suggestions! Helpful!]

Oct 29, 2010

Make bus rides friendlier

MRS HYUNHEE Kim's suggestion to equip buses with route maps and a system to announce the name of the next bus stop is indeed useful ('Lost after taking the bus'; Tuesday).

Only last week, my nephew was in a similar situation. He studies at the Nanyang Technological University and came to visit me. I gave him detailed instructions to alight at the bus stop near Block 610 Clementi West.

But he missed it and had to alight at the next bus stop near the National University of Singapore. Fortunately, he had his mobile phone with him and after more instructions, got to my home 30 minutes later.

I have noticed that some of the buses operated by SMRT display signs of the next bus stop coming up. But they are ineffective when names of bus stops are similar. Also, the entire fleet of buses here will have to be upgraded to make a difference.

I have a few suggestions to solve the problem:
- Assign a unique identification (ID) to each bus stop and display it prominently so that it is visible from a distance of 200m to 300m whether it is day or night.
- The bus guide and tourist maps should indicate the bus stop ID in addition to the bus stop's name.
- The ID system could also be used by Internet- and mobile-based services.

Such a standardised system will go a long way in making our public transport system more friendly for commuters.

Prem Prakash

[Unique ID for every bus-stop that can be see 300m away? UGLY! As it is there are already too many signs and advertisements littering our landscape. Most bus services cater to the resident population and they learn the bus routes after the initial period. Tourist tend to stay within the tourist belt or to visit specific attractions. The next letter is more practical.]

Tourists may have other options

MRS HYUNHEE Kim's letter ('Lost after taking the bus'; Tuesday) brought back memories of an almost similar situation that my family and I experienced in South Korea.

We had found a place of interest online which had instructions on how to get there via public transport.

The first part of the journey was smooth enough as it was by the Metro; but the second part was by bus. We tried to follow the online instructions which was to board a green bus with a certain number.

There were no instructions on when to get off, and we could not understand anything from the bus-stand signs as English is not widely used there.

Nevertheless, we boarded the bus and travelled a distance before we decided to ask a fellow passenger who, to our relief, spoke some English.

Like Seoul, I believe Singapore's public bus network is designed to provide cost-efficient transportation for a large portion of the population and caters less to tourists who are less familiar with the routes.

Places of interest are usually accessible via the tourist transport network and these would have all the sophisticated tools to get first-time visitors to where they want to go.

As new families get to know Singapore better, they could use other means, for example, smart phones with locator or map tools. Or, they could seek assistance from fellow passengers.

Donovan Sy

MRT travails of a pregnant woman

[Usually I picked on silly forum letters. But this one not silly. It was the online comment (after the letter) that caught my eye. Uncourteous and ungracious and barely forgiveable. Rude and obnoxious (in this situation) speaks of an entitlement mentality and a self-centredness that would shame his parents.]

Oct 28, 2010

I AM almost seven months pregnant and I take the MRT and bus to work daily. During the course of my pregnancy, fewer than 10 people have given up their seats to me.

Last week, I was standing in front of a priority seat on the MRT. The person sitting on it got up as he was getting off the train, but a man in his 40s brushed past me to grab the seat.

[May be "racist" of me, but I suspect he's from China.]

In his haste, he pushed me just as the train was leaving the station. I almost lost my balance but he pretended not to notice me and fell asleep. I can understand that he was eager to get the seat, but I cannot accept such ungracious behaviour.

People have bumped into my tummy with their huge backpacks and handbags, and I have endured jerky train rides with no poles for me to hold on to as some commuters choose to lean on them. I have also had my feet trampled on and been pushed as some passengers rush to alight without so much as an 'excuse me'.

Is it so difficult for us to practise some graciousness in our everyday life? Pregnant women do not want to be treated like queens, but at the very least, be considerate to them. Even if no one gives up his seat to me, a person who asks if I would like to lean on the glass panel at the end of the row of seats would earn my gratitude, because at least someone notices and cares.

I have even given up my seat to an old woman who was walking with a tongkat. Are there no able-bodied young men or women around?

[Of course people will paint themselves in a good light, and yes, we only have her perspective. But the tone of her letter speaks of a lack of entitlement mentality that is laudable. I feel empathy for her and I wish Singaporeans would be more gracious, and I think she's right. A dim sum dolly ad is not going to work.]

I hope people can be more considerate to pregnant women and old folk. This is something our society needs to work on, and it can't be fixed with just a Dim Sum Dollies campaign.

Cai Suqi (Ms)

Online comment

An elderly passenger did not choose to be elderly. A handicapped passenger did not choose to be handicapped. Gestures of grace or sympathy are rightly due to them. But a pregnant passenger exercised her own free will, with eyes wide open, to be pregnant. So take responsibility for the decision you make, expect the vissicitudes of life that come with the decision, and shut up already.
Posted by: acsian12 at Thu Oct 28 10:50:54 SGT 2010

How rude. Wonder if writer is really from ACS or just trying to defame the school. Prime candidate for retroactive abortion. His/Her mother really wasted her time and made the wrong choice carrying it to term.

Obviously it is still a virgin. Or it would know that some women when getting pregnant (or trying to) close their eyes.

And of course the elderly has a choice whether to grow old... or die. Such closed minded "logic".

I highly recommend acsian12 to consider living fast, dying young and leaving a corpse. I don't know what it looks like so I can't say "good-looking corpse". Probably ugly. Like its soul.

Casinos catering more to S'poreans than tourists?

Letter from Leong Sze Hian
Today Online 05:55 AM Oct 25, 2010

I REFER to media reports about Singaporeans visiting the two casinos here.

If Singaporeans reportedly make up about a third of the 55,000 visitors to the two casinos, does it mean that there has been about 3.85 million (55,000 ÷ 3 x 210 days) visits by Singaporeans to the casinos in the seven months since their opening?

If we add to this figure permanent residents (PRs), the number of visits may cross 4 million.

If we include the 1.4 million foreigners who are resident in Singapore visiting the casinos, then the number of tourists (two-thirds of the daily 55,000 less PRs and foreigner residents) may not be even half the total number who visit the casinos.

So, are the casinos catering more to attract Singapore residents or tourists?

Finally, why are the statistics not being made public?

[Maybe because stupid people may make dumb conclusions like this one? Let's see in 7 months 3.85 million visits by Singaporeans. Implying that practically every Singaporean, man woman and child, has been there at least once? And apparently, all 1.4m resident foreigners are visiting the casinos as well! That's every foreign talent, PR, foreign worker, foreign maid, and foreign bride!

3.85m is practically the whole population of SC. I haven't gone to the casino. Most of my colleagues have not gone (or maybe would not admit to having gone). So many of those who go are repeat visitors.

But Mr Leong is not stupid. He generally provides analysis of financial issues and offers some intriguing viewpoints. But this is probably pre-election posturing.]

Is there a serious educational gap?

Oct 18, 2010

MS LIM Zi Kun's letter ("Generation Y: Don't assume we're not serious"; Oct 8) is a breath of fresh air, coming as it does from an 18-year-old with everything to live and strive for still ahead of her.

If what she claims is true - that she and her peers are still quite unaware of "Singapore's legislative machinery, government policies and political culture" after 12 years of education - then something ought to be done quickly.

She has identified a serious gap in the education of our young, a gap that could seriously compromise Singapore's continued progress.

Those in the position to change the status quo should ensure that she and her peers, and all those who come after them, understand the importance of their personal contributions and are able to make intelligent and informed decisions about things that affect their lives and Singapore.

Singapore would be so much the poorer without citizens of this calibre.

Lee Seck Kay

[I read that same letter, and a part of me was thinking, yeah right. There is a critique of Singapore's education system, and Singapore students that the system and the product of the system are not very pro-active about learning. They are spoon fed. Whatever they need to know, they expect to be spoon fed. I must say that when I was 18, I probably didn't know everything about Singapore politics or Singapore history. But I probably knew quite a bit, from personal interests, from reading the papers, from questioning the situation, and just wondering why things were the way they were.

When I was 18, there was no internet. At least not the internet of today, and certainly I had no access to the rudimentary internet.

But there's wikipedia today. And if you're 18 years old, and you profess an interest in Singapore's politics, legislative system, and history and you have not found out from wikipedia, then you are either lying about your professed interest, or every time you log onto the internet, you are facebooking. Distracted.

Or did you want the official version of everything to be spoon fed to you? Then I guess, you are a product victim of our education system.]

Oct 8, 2010

Don't assume we're not serious

AS A 'Gen Y' Singaporean who is turning 18, I realise that despite 12 years of national education and two years of social studies, I remain quite unaware of Singapore's legislative machinery, government policies and political culture.

Likewise, most of my peers have never heard of the Women's Charter, and are clueless about the laws of estate, marriage, inheritance, censorship and so on.

Most adults around us have neither discussed nor spoken to us about Singapore law and politics in an open and impartial manner. This has created a false impression that these subjects are taboo, unrelated to our lives and exclusive only to the academic elite. We must correct the misconception among young people that law and politics do not concern them.

When adults instil in them the belief that they have a stake in the law, governance and their own future, perhaps they will not be as apathetic as adults claim they are.

To help create awareness, private organisations could work with schools to hold talks, symposiums and the like to actively inform young people about Singapore's law and political culture in an unbiased and objective manner. The Ministry of Education could also make it a mandatory part of the curriculum for pre-university and tertiary students.

If young people are more informed, they are more likely to make informed decisions and they might also actively seek to improve the quality of legislation and governance in Singapore.

What is needed is an informative platform for youth to understand their place in the nation's 'eco-system' in real terms. It should be a springboard for civic thinking and, by all means, activism.

Lim Zi Kun (Ms)

[I wanna say, go Google it, you twit! But decided she has a point also. The school hasn't taught her to go find things out herself. Sad.]

Regulate parking in private estates

Oct 14, 2010

PARKING illegally and causing traffic obstruction is rampant in private residential estates. This scenario is, however, uncommon in HDB estates and almost non-existent along major roads.

Time and again, we read in the news that neighbours come into conflict and even end up in court over disputes of traffic obstruction.

When the authorities ignore indiscriminate parking in private estates, they are sending a message that such offences are tolerated. Thus the line between running afoul of and compliance with the law becomes obscure. The consequence of this is that more disorderly behaviour may be condoned.

Richard Goh

[This is not a silly letter. But it speaks to our love-hate relationship with the authorities/government, and it reveals our desire to abdicate our independence to the government. The writer does not make a distinction between private space and public space, government matters and private matters. The distinction is not between compliance or non-compliance of laws but applicability of laws, situational needs, government intervention or over-intervention. Or it speaks to boorish behaviour of the nouveau riche. or the pseudo-riche. or the materially wealthy, but morally bankrupt.]

A high-speed railway dream

Oct 5, 2010

THE Tanjong Pagar Railway Station must be preserved for future use as the terminus for the high-speed rail service to Kuala Lumpur, and beyond to China.

[Why?]

The smaller metre gauge tracks, like those used in old tin mines, will have to be changed at Tanjong Pagar. But we are not just thinking of convenience for passengers, railways are viable only if they carry freight.

[Sounds like additional work for no change in the situation.]

China is planning to build its track down from Yunnan through Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia to Singapore. It needs another access point for the vast hinterland of central China. Its eastern railheads on the Pacific coast are choked with too much freight and cannot move any faster. Hence, the need for this more southern bridgehead.

[So why Tanjong Pagar? Why can't the station start at say... Woodlands? Or better yet, Johor Bahru?]

It is up to the South-east Asian nations to grasp this opportunity to help themselves as well as China. In very many ways, all will benefit.

There will be revenue from the faster nocturnal cargo traffic and daily high-speed passenger traffic direct from our city centre next to Tanjong Pagar station to Kuala Lumpur and then further to Bangkok.

The Chinese railway is expected to also connect through Xinjiang and Urumchi/Kashgar to the European rail network via Iran and Turkey.

From Tanjong Pagar, one would, in effect, be able to buy a ticket through to London.
With engineering and architectural ingenuity, the station at Tanjong Pagar could be preserved and stay alive within a modern high-rise complex.

George Yuille Caldwell

[Nice letter. Doesn't grasp the point about addressing the point of a railway line that cuts thru half of Singapore, tying up valuable land. Yes, we can have a high-speed train to serve voracious China. But it doesn't have to start at Tanjong Pagar station. It would work just as well if not better from Woodlands or even across the causeway.]

Low-flying concern for residents

Oct 2, 2010

YESTERDAY'S report ('RSAF helicopter makes forced landing in Woodlands field') is a stark reminder that for all our emphasis on safety protocols and meticulous attention to maintaining and servicing combat aircraft, there is cause for concern.

I live along a stretch of road in the East Coast that lies directly in the path of aircraft making their landing in Paya Lebar Air Base. The planes fly extremely low, and are barely metres above the rooftops of some of the neighbouring apartments.

[This is a standard requirement for landing planes. The planes that are attempting to land, should preferably, gradually reduce their altitude. This requires them to slowly get lower and lower. The alternative of being very high and then suddenly drop to ground level has been found to be greatly increase the chances of crashes to about 100%. This is generally considered a bad landing technique.]

I have also seen the Hercules aircraft in low-level flying, encircling the airbase. What safety measures does the Defence Ministry have in place to protect residential areas? What parameters are used in determining that these low flight paths are safe?

Are exhaustive methods used to train pilots on what to do should an emergency occur at different stages of the landing approach?

[We try not to use exhaustive methods to train our pilots otherwise when they too exhausted, they tend to make mistakes, like crash their planes into your house. We therefore use comprehensive methods so the pilots can comprehend (that means understand) the landing procedure and what to do in case of emergency. We also have contingency plans. This is in case the pilot cannot control his bladder (incontingent; in Hokkien, jio kin) which may make him try to land the plane too fast and thereby cause the plane to crash into your house.]

Are there alternative landing paths that would not place the land approach right above densely populated areas?

[As the plane needs to fly lower and lower as it lands, the buildings along the landing path are restricted to low rise buildings. For example, we would never have built Pinnacle@Duxton along the landing path. So population density is already lower; there are fewer people living along the flight path. However, if by "population density" you mean how "dense" (stupid) the population is, that is not important for the landing of the plane. In any case, most likely the people living there are either dense or hard-up. They should already know that they are in the landing path, they still stay there! Or they buy the homes there very cheap (cos the sellers irritated by noise of planes landing and taking off, and buyers know so they bargain the price down. So those that buy homes there also probably a bit cheapskate or hard-up: want landed property but can't buy better location. ]

Should the ministry consider relocating the air base?

Dr Yuen Siu Mun

[Dr Yuen asks what safety measures are in place to protect residential areas. The answer is: none. You're all going to die! Crash and burn, man! Crash and burn!

Alternative Answer: We depend on the pilots' sense of self-preservation to ensure that their planes are in airworthy condition, and not to crash at all. The persons most likely to die are those on the plane. This includes the pilot. They cannot choose to be elsewhere at that time. (Unless they use the emergency parachutes.) There is at least a chance that residents may be at some hawker centre eating (or in the office, etc) when the plane crashes into their homes. So they can still survive. However, we note that the presence of parachutes may promote laxity in ensuring planes are airworthy and that pilots exercise due care in landing their planes. We are therefore removing parachutes from all aircrafts from now onwards. Dr Yuen can be assured that the pilots will be henceforth even more cautious and crash-adverse.

Should the airbase be relocated? Where to? The airbase has been there for 30 years. The low flying aircraft has been flying low for 30 years. It's about time one of them crash soon. So, move already! Why you still hanging around there? Wanna die issit? Anyway, we did a quick check. The people in Serangoon Gardens also don't want the Airbase near there. They say already got foreign workers dormitory, so should give other people a chance to sacrifice for the country.

Comment: The writer has seized this opportunity to make a case for moving Paya Lebar Airbase elsewhere (as long as it's not in my backyard - NIMBY)! If he succeeds, his property will appreciate in value. However, the current site has already been in existence for 30 years as an Airbase, and longer, if you include the years it had operated as an International Airport. The surrounding area has been zoned and restricted in development to ensure that there is a safe path for aircraft landing. Moving the airbase is not going to be easy in land scarce Singapore. Any other site will mean introducing a new disamenity to residents, not to mention demolishing buildings that are too tall in the flight path. This would mean additional costs. There are probably few if any viable sites left in Singapore. However residents in the path of landing aircraft by now should be used to the disamenity, or if not should have moved out long ago. There is little point in moving the airbase. Moreover in 30 years of operations, there has been no crashes into residential areas. The writer can either decide that one is long overdue and move before it happens, or take comfort in the track record. For comparison, the former Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong was surrounded by densely packed residential areas, and there has been no crashes despite the high volume of air traffic.

To take a singular episode which ended with no loss of life and minimal risks to civilian lives, and to blow it out of proportion, presumably for his own property value, is fear-mongering for fun and profit. To suggest that there is a real danger and yet to stay put in his current residence, is disingenuous.]

History is not an unchanging narrative

Sep 29, 2010

Related.

WHILE history is about the objective pursuit and description of 'truth' about the past, to the extent that truth can be objectified, there is no single, immutable 'truth'.

[I'm not sure if the writer even knows what this means.]

Our interpretations of the past are bound to change with time with the presentation of new evidence, new perspectives, new frameworks and even with linguistic drift. Setting history in stone would be to deny this ongoing dialogue between the past and the present; it would severely stymie our understanding of ourselves, our societies, our cultures and their evolution over time.

[If there is new evidence, then that would change the way history is written and viewed.]

It is in that vein that historical revisionism is vital. Without it, history would just be a dead science, as much a disservice to humanity as to the historians.

[History is a discipline, but it is not "science" as in having scientific theories or principles.]

Also, we must not see revisionism in simplistic binary terms: mainstream versus alternative, right versus wrong, good versus evil, yours versus mine. Historical discourse is about competing as well as complementary narrative strands and rational debate.

At the end of the day, there might not just be one history, but many, equally valid, alternative histories, told from differing perspectives.

That is where my quarrel with Mr Ong Weichong's commentary lies ('Guard against romanticising leftist past'; last Thursday). He presents the issue as a false dilemma: it is either the state-sanctioned narrative or a romanticised version.

[The rebuttal from the History professor was much better argued. This is at best a layman's attempt to rebut. It lacks... discipline.]

There is also the straw man fallacy here: The nuanced but unmistakable insinuation that revisionist Singapore historians are guilty of 'romanticisation', and their claims are hence, by association, invalidated.

When Mr Ong writes about 'plugging the gaps left by the state', it is not revisionism, but padding of the status quo, an enlargement at best. Revisionism consists of not only 'plugging the gaps', but also rewriting or modifying, even supplanting, existing narratives in response to new evidence, new readings and new perspectives.

His treatment of violence is also simplistic. Armed insurgencies and insurrections, especially in the post-World War II era, must be seen in the larger context of the fight for emancipation from imperial rule and colonialism.

Often, violence is the only weapon of the oppressed, the weak, the disenfranchised, and must be juxtaposed against the backdrop of state violence if a meaningful narrative and deeper understanding are to be arrived at.

Dr Leong Yan Hoi

[I don't disagree with the point which was that the original commentary was arrogant and reductionistic (I may be using this word wrongly), and pompously dismisses academic enquiry especially in disenfranchised voices. Certainly, for a full picture of history, the silenced minority, or the vanquished should be heard as well. But I think the original rebuttal was forceful, well argued, and addresses all the issues. A half-baked effort such as this to refute or rebut the original commentary unnecessarily opens up an avenue for a re-rebuttal.]