Gerald Giam

Billion dollar profits but still axing jobs

Update: DBS shares up $11.70 up 2.63% from previous close.

The stunning news blared out on Friday that Singapore’s largest bank, DBS, will be cutting 900 jobs by the end of this month. At least half of the job cuts will be from its 7,600 workforce in Singapore.

DBS CEO Richard Stanley said that the cuts will be “across all business units and functions, and at all levels of the organisation”.

When I first informed my editor of the news, his immediate reaction was, “Damn, the retrenchments have started.”

It is natural to assume that retrenchments point to an economy that is hitting the doldrums. After all, won’t companies only start retrenching staff after all other avenues of cost cutting have been exhausted and the company is starting to bleed? Continue reading “Billion dollar profits but still axing jobs”

Govt bailout for failing casino?

The TODAY newspaper has raised the prospect of a government bailout for a troubled casino operator which is building its showcase “integrated resort” in Marina Bay.

The Financial Times reported that shares of Las Vegas Sands fell more than 40 per cent after the casino operator warned that it risked defaulting on its debt, raising doubts about its ability to continue operating as a going concern. The Sands is reportedly struggling to meet its debt obligations.

The casino operator said that failure to raise new capital would trigger a series of defaults, raising a “substantial doubt about (its) ability to continue as a going concern”.

In a bit to assure the Singapore Government, Sands chairman and chief executive Sheldon Adelson this week met with the government officials to “personally reaffirm our commitment to the success of Marina Bay Sands”.

Adelson issued a statement, saying: “I am pleased to say that the Singapore Government’s support of our project remains strong.”

Of course the Government’s support remains strong! As a gaming analyst told TODAY: “There is no doubt in my mind the Singapore Government will come in to ensure the project is completed.”

PAP MP Ho Geok Choo was even more frank: “The Government has placed a huge stake of its reputation on this project because we went loud and clear when the decision to have casinos here was made. We obviously attach a lot of importance to seeing it through.”

TODAY reporter Teo Xuanwei wrote that some observers expect it to apply an infusion of case or assume a chunk of the casino operator’s debt, possibly through its investment arms.

Investment arms? Does she mean Temasek or GIC?

You mean there’s a possibility that the Government is going to use our reserves to bail out a casino operator just to save face?

I am strongly opposed to such a move, and even more so if it is done secretly without informing the public (which Temasek and GIC could very well do).

The fear of the opposition

I happened to sit next to an older relative at a wedding dinner recently, when our conversation turned to politics.

My relative wondered why I had not followed my parents to Australia, and mused that he was considering moving there too. When I asked why, he cited the fear of political instability in Singapore.

That remark surprised me since Singapore is seen by many to be one of the most politically stable countries in Asia. We have had no change of government – violent or otherwise – since 1959.

When probed further, my uncle said he feared the opposition taking over in a freak election. I assured him that given the current state of the opposition, the PAP government will not be under any threat of losing an election within his lifetime. More importantly, I told him I trust Singapore voters to be wise enough not to vote a lousy party into power.

He countered by pointing out that even when the opposition had fielded “criminals” and slipper-wearing candidates, they were still able to garner 20 to 30% of the vote.

I explained, from my limited knowledge of electoral sociology, that in every election, there will be at least 20% of voters who are hardcore oppositionists and will vote for anyone who ran against the ruling party candidate. In Sembawang GRC where I live, 23% still voted for the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) team sans party chief Chee Soon Juan, even though it was running against a relatively strong PAP team helmed by the likable and Chinese-speaking Health Minister, Khaw Boon Wan. That was the largest margin of victory for the PAP in that election.

However the gulf between 23% and 50% — the latter being the percentage necessary to win a seat outright — is huge. Even in the most closely contested constituency of Aljunied GRC in the 2006 General Election, the PAP’s 55% win against the Workers’ Party would be considered a landslide in most other democracies. Consider the UK’s Labour Party, which won the 2005 election with just 35% of the popular vote. Put in this perspective, the PAP’s 66.6% overall percentage in 2006 was a blowout victory.

My uncle admires the PAP for what they have achieved, not just for Singapore, but for him personally. Growing up in a one-room flat, and now living in a private apartment, he has seen a dramatic improvement in his standard of living over the past 40 years. He reserved stinging criticism for some of his peers who “live in bungalows” and are still so ungrateful as to grumble about the government.

I cautioned him that past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investors always say. Just because the PAP has governed well in the past, does not mean that it will continue to do so for eternity. My uncle agreed that no country has had a particular party govern forever.

In the short term however, he was supremely confident that the PAP’s recruitment process will ensure that only top-notch candidates are presented in each election. In contrast, he said, the opposition was happy to take anyone who had a degree and was willing to pay the election deposit, even if they had no “track record”.

“What is your definition of a track record?” I asked him. Many of the new PAP MPs don’t exactly have a very long resume either. Nevertheless, he was sure that with the many interviews they had undergone with party leaders, coupled with the background checks, PAP candidates would definitely meet the necessary criteria for political leadership.

I asked him if he would consider voting for a non-PAP candidate if he or she were more “qualified” than the PAP candidate.

After initially saying he would, he later reasoned that it would be impossible for an opposition candidate to be as qualified as his PAP opponent. Firstly, the PAP’s recruitment process would throw up only the best men in the country. Secondly, anyone worth their salt, who genuinely desired to serve the people and make Singapore a better place would join the PAP instead of the opposition.

He was of the view that a capable person would be “out of his mind” to join the opposition, and that people who joined the opposition did so only out of self-interest or ulterior motives. Why else would someone want to oppose such an “excellent” government? Apparently, joining the opposition in and of itself indicated a character flaw.

He dismissed the possibility that some principled individuals joined the opposition because they could not see themselves joining the PAP due to fundamental disagreements with the latter’s style of governance. He also did not see the price many opposition members paid for their political beliefs as worthy of much respect.

Our heated discussion went on and on. In the end it was time to go home and we had to agree to disagree.

What the opposition fails to see

While I was slightly dismayed to hear these words from an educated senior citizen like my uncle, I have no doubt that he represents a significant constituency of citizens who have a “rags-to-riches” story to tell.

His point of view is particularly instructive for our opposition.

From my past conversations with many opposition members, I get the sense that many of them joined because they felt a need to “check” the ruling party — nothing else. And many of them think that just because they are not the PAP, and they shake a few hands and show up on Nomination Day, voters will choose them over their rivals.

This is a recipe for defeat — again and again, election after election.

What they fail to see is that the “swing” voters (i.e., those who may vote either way on Polling Day and who effectively decide the outcome of an election) are largely voting for a party to form the Government, not individuals who merely snap at the heels of the PAP behemoth.

Therefore, to win their vote, the opposition parties have to prove to these voters that they are competent and honest enough to lead the whole country, not just their ward, and will not end up flushing half a century of progress down the drain.

The opposition has two crutches that it always falls back on: One, that the unlevel political playing field created by the PAP makes it impossible to mount any significant challenge to it; and two, that good people do not step forward to join their parties.

These are both true to a great extent, but it should not stop the opposition parties from improving themselves internally, so as to present a more professional face to the voting public.

People want to hear different, and better ideas from the opposition on how to run the country, not just gripes about every little fault of the PAP.

It is not unusual that many Singaporeans hold the opposition to a higher standard than they do for the ruling party. After all, the opposition has no track record of successfully running a nation, and therefore has to prove they are twice as good as their PAP opponents before they will earn the vote.

It is my hope that our opposition will shift to a higher gear soon, and that more good men and women will join them. The next election is due by November 2011. With the economy heading south, it is likely that the Prime Minister will call for an election much earlier than that (since a poor economy generally favours the PAP over the opposition).

Time is running out, and the people’s hopes are slowly getting dashed. Can the opposition turn things around and dispel people’s fear of their success?

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.

The Elected Presidency and future non-PAP govts

The debate about the relevance of the Elected Presidency (EP) came up again on October 21 in Parliament. With new framework to tap investment income from the reserves, the PAP government has given the Elected President additional duties; most significantly, approving the Finance Minister’s formula for determining the expected long-term real rates of return of Singapore’s reserves at the start of each financial year.

This formula is not made known to the public and could be changed each year. The only safeguard is the President and his Council of Advisors.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on learning that the Workers’ Party (WP) voted in support of the constitutional amendment, took the opportunity to prod them to change their stand on the EP.

The WP’s original stand was made clear in the party’s Manifesto, released before the 2006 election. The WP opposes the EP because they feel it will take away the power of Parliament as the people’s representatives.

The EP was introduced by the PAP government ostensibly as a “second key” to the nation’s reserves and a safeguard against the irresponsible appointment of key civil servants.

The Elected President has much greater powers than most Singaporeans are probably aware of. According to the Singapore Constitution, the President may, at his discretion:

a. Appoint the Prime Minister (Article 25);

b. Veto the government’s choice of Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges, Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Chief of Defence Force, Chiefs of the Air Force, Army and Navy, Commissioner of Police, Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), statutory board chairmen and members, Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and many other key public service appointments (Article 22);

c. Veto the appointment or removal of directors or CEOs of Government companies, namely, Temasek Holdings, GIC and MND Holdings (Article 22C);

d. Veto a request to dissolve Parliament, which is a prerequisite for calling elections (Article 21);

e. Veto any proposed legislation that curtails his own powers (Article 22H);

f. Veto the budgets of statutory boards (Article 22B);

g. Approve the CPIB Director’s request to commence a corruption investigation against anyone, even if the Prime Minister refuses (Article 22G).

In the case of (b) and (c) above, the presidential veto can be overridden with a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament.

Given the powers of an Elected President, it is no wonder that WP chief Low Thia Khiang argued in Parliament that “the office of the Elected President could be potentially crippling for a non-PAP government”.

However this is the most likely reason why the PAP government introduced the EP in the first place. Surely they do not see a need to check themselves!

Furthermore, the very strict criteria for standing for election as President would, as Mr Low put it, mean presidents would likely come from the PAP Establishment.

Let’s examine the qualifications for Presidential candidates (Article 19):

a. Has been, for at least 3 years, a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the PSC, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Permanent Secretary, statutory board chairman or CEO, chairman or CEO of a $100 million dollar Singapore-registered company.

b. Satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation;

For (a) above, almost all qualified persons are current or former government appointees. And there are very few $100 million Singapore-registered companies which are not Government companies or their subsidiaries.

Who are the members of the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC)? Basically “three wise men”: The PSC chairman, chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. All these are government appointees (albeit some requiring presidential consent).

So, in summary, the field of candidates is limited to mainly government appointees. If that fails to throw up a candidate that satisfies the government, a government-appointed committee can make a subjective judgment call on who can run for president.

This played out almost exactly in the 2005 presidential election, when Andrew Kuan was disqualified by the PEC on grounds that as former Group Chief Financial Officer of the $1.9 billion JTC Corporation, his seniority and responsibility was “not comparable to those mentioned in the Constitution”.

Scenario: Opposition wins election

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

An opposition coalition wins 51% of the seats in Parliament in the 2016 elections, way short of a two-thirds majority. The presidential election is not due until 2017. Therefore the Elected President is still the previous PAP government’s choice.

Come the August 2017 presidential election, the “three wise men” of the PEC are still in office, and cannot be removed without the approval of the sitting President. And so the field of candidates for the Presidency are still the PAP’s choices, and the choice of the President is a foregone conclusion at least until the 2023 presidential election.

This President exercises all the powers mentioned earlier, blocking appointments, including key security appointments of that of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Army and Commissioner of Police. Because the new government does not enjoy a two-thirds majority, it will be unable to override the President’s veto and will be forced to appoint the President’s preferred generals.

Even after 2023, seven years after the PAP has lost power, it may still be able to exercise its “third key”. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted by Reuters on 16 September 2006, saying: “Without the Elected President and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”

The most obvious implication of MM Lee’s statement is a threat of a military coup. But even without a coup, the presence of rebellious generals and police commissioners could be enough to destabilize the government and scare away investors.

Added to an uncooperative or adversarial Attorney-General, Chief Justice, Auditor-General and CPIB Director, the new government could be utterly crippled, not unlike the situation in Thailand right now.

For ordinary citizens who are not fully aware of the political manoeuvring behind the scenes, what they will see is a paralyzed government, incapable of getting anything done. They will yearn to “return to Egypt”, or the days when the PAP was in charge. By the 2021 or 2026 election, they will vote back the PAP into power and Singapore will be back to square one (less of course Lee Kuan Yew, for better or for worse).

Of course, the above scenario is an extreme example. If the PAP really had the country’s interests at heart, they would not paralyze the government after losing an election. But one can never predict how political parties will act, given that their foremost objective is to gain or retain power.

To keep or abolish?

Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the WP that the EP, in its current setup, is unsatisfactory.

However, I will stop short of calling for its complete abolition. In principle, a directly elected Head of State would enhance democratic accountability of Parliament to the people. What I feel should be abolished is the artificially stringent qualification criteria for President.

The US Presidential candidate needs only to be born in the US, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the US for at least 14 of those years. In addition, there is a two-term limit and the Senate (the upper house of Parliament) can disqualify impeached and convicted individuals from running for President.

If the most important position in the world can be left to a democratic vote by citizens, I don’t see why Singapore cannot do the same. In any case, the Elected President maintains only custodial, not executive powers.

Therefore I would like to suggest that we keep the EP, but the qualification criteria should include:

a. Born or naturalised citizen;

b. Lived in Singapore for at least 35 years;

c. Has not held the office of President for more than one term;

d. Is subject to the qualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 44)

e. Is not subject to any of the disqualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 45);

f. Has not been a member of any political party for three years leading to the date of his nomination for election.

My main rationale for (f) is to try to minimize the number of politically-aligned candidates, since the President is expected to make decisions without favouring any political party.

I have deliberately excluded any criteria for financial knowledge, even though a large portion of the President’s duties pertain to financial oversight. I would expect the candidates themselves to prove to the electorate their financial competence, and scrutinize each others’ records.

In essence, this relatively thin criteria is not to lower the bar, but to subject the candidates to the electorate’s scrutiny, instead of members of the Establishment. With an educated and world-aware electorate, I trust the “wisdom of crowds” to make the right decision.

This proposal is a work in progress. I hope readers can discuss this and offer counter-suggestions. If there is sufficient interest among readers, I will write another article to discuss my rationale for the other proposed criteria, and possibly include amendments based on feedback.

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.

Obama’s foreign policy proposals

I support Barack Obama but not simply because it’s the “in” thing. As a non-American whose country is greatly affected by US foreign policy, my main reason for rooting for him is because I believe he presents much better foreign policy proposals than John McCain. I particularly like his focus on diplomacy first. This is not going soft on America’s enemies. This is fighting smart. Extending America’s “soft power” would do much more to overcome terrorists and other enemies of the US than military power ever could.

The Obama campaign has done a good compilation of all his speeches where he outlined his foreign policy visions. Take a look.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnqrl_aZfPI&hl=en&fs=1]

Now who is the pork barrel champion?

It has become a familiar pattern. Whenever PAP leaders want to emphasize a point about how wise and capable they are, they cite negative examples from other countries and contrast it with Singapore.

Tuesday in Parliament was no different. Despite the PAP itself inching closer to the sacred kitty (i.e., the reserves) by increasing the proportion of investment income the government can use, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave a long speech about how important it is to safeguard the reserves from “pork barrel” spending.

Of course, he was not referring to pork barrel spending by the ever-prudent PAP. He was implying that if Singaporeans elected any opposition party into power, that party would exhaust all our hard-earned reserves.

Mr Lee cited the examples of Norway and Australia, which according to him both came under populist pressure to spend their reserves during the heat of elections.

In Australia, he said, candidates John Howard and Kevin Rudd had promised multi-billion dollar packages if elected, so much so that major newspapers started a “pork-o-meter” to keep track of the cost of campaign promises.

In Norway, Parliamentarians set the rules then subsequently “broke the rules” on spending caps on their reserves.

I wonder why the PM decided to stick his foot in his mouth when Parliament had already voted unanimously for his government’s proposed spending increase.

Did he not realise he sounded a tad hypocritical?

Since the 1991 election, the PAP has used pork barrel promises in the form of HDB upgrading to further its political objectives. It declared that it is completely justified in upgrading the flats of constituencies that voted for them, and bumping opposition held wards to the end of the queue — a truly non sequitur kind of logic.

In the last election, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong promised $180 million to upgrade Hougang and Potong Pasir flats, without even thinking through how the government was going to fund that spending, as he admitted months later.

How about the $2.6 billion “Progress Package” dished out days before Polling Day? Does that smell porky enough?

It is amusing that he cited Australia as a negative example. Kevin Rudd actually proposed less spending than John Howard — and won.

The newspapers came up with a “pork-o-meter”. Well at least they were educating citizens about politicians’ populist proposals. I don’t recall our local papers pointing out that selective upgrading promises were pork barrel spending, or that election cash giveaways could be considered vote-buying in many developed countries.

Govt should play bigger role in managing price increases

On 11 October, The Straits Times Insight section discussed proposed changes to the Constitution to allow the Government to tap more of the returns from investing the reserves. The ST asked readers what they thought of the plan and what concerns they had about the changes.

A friend of mine wrote in, but the editor left out some of the important points he wanted to get across. Here is the full version which I obtained from him. The text in red were the omitted parts.

The government should play a more positive and active role in managing all the price increases that have been coming up since the end of the first quarter of 2008. I believe Singapore based monopolies and especially those that are government linked have taken advantage with all the increases that have and are affecting the common man in the street.

It can be easily observed that all this started since the end of the first quarter 2008 euphoria, of a healthy economy. There has been no let down. This is compounded with the highest inflation rate Singapore is experiencing now.

The financial meltdown has only escalated and enhanced this. To blame it all on the financial meltdown would be naïve as the government is in control of all the other increases that have been shoved down the common man.

Every time a price increase is announced the government announces a relief package. Why don’t we go back to the source? Prevention is better than cure.

Ajit Singh Nagpal

Three major US newspapers endorse Obama

It’s an interesting feature in US politics. As polling day approaches, newspapers will publish an editorial endorsing one of the candidates.

CNN reported that the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune have endorsed Barack Obama as their choice for President of the United States.

Here are snippets of what they had to say about the rationale behind their choice.

Washington Post:

…it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president.

Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

Los Angeles Times:

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that’s the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain’s judgment.

Obama’s selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.

We may marvel that Obama’s critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

Chicago Tribune:

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate–he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn’t bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation’s most powerful office, he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

$1 billion profit, so electricity tariffs raised 22%

SP Services has announced that it has raised electricity tariffs 21.89% from 1 Oct to 31 Dec 2008. The Online Citizen’s Leong Sze Hian has pointed out that SP Services’ parent company, Singapore Power Ltd, made a profit of $1.086 billion in 2007. I checked out their website and indeed this is true.

They made over $1 billion in PROFITS and they are increasing tariffs by 22%! And all this when oil prices are actually decreasing.

Of course, since it is not useful for our power companies to use the current oil prices to justify the increase, they are using the “forward fuel oil price”. This is the price agreed between the buyer and the seller for delivery of the oil at a specified future date, in this case 3 months.

As with the Public Transport Council (PTC) and ministerial salaries, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) is using this ridiculous formula to justify price increases.

It’s really shocking how the EMA has gone to the hilt to defend the price increases of the company they are supposed to regulate. But on closer examination, it’s not all that surprising:

– Singapore Power made $1 billion in 2007, much of it from Singaporeans’ electricity fees.

– SP is in turn 100% owned by Temasek Holdings (as are the two other power companies, PowerSeraya and Senoko Power).

– Temasek Holdings is owned by the Ministry of Finance.

– EMA, the energy market regulator, is a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (as is the Competition Commission of Singapore, which is supposed to prevent cartel-like behaviour).

I think everyone is having a jolly good back scratch, except us ordinary citizens.

Something is seriously amiss when a power company can make $1 billion in profits and still raise charges by 22%. It is a classic example of the profit-driven culture that our government is run on. I really don’t know how much longer Singaporeans are going to stand for this kind of nonsense.
.d
.

Passing of JBJ

Former opposition MP & former Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, Mr JB Jeyaretnam has died early this morning from heart failure.

I am so sad to hear of the passing of Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, also known as JBJ. JBJ fought his whole life to bring change to Singapore. All he received from the Government were lawsuits, partisan vitriol and a smearing of his name. Most Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, had no idea what he has contributed to the country. They think he was a crazy man who just opposed for opposition’s sake. That was definitely not the case. If you read his book of parliamentary speeches, you will see countless excellent suggestions that he raised to benefit Singapore, but were simply shot down or dismissed by the ruling party.

Last night I was meeting with a bunch of friends. We were just talking about JBJ. One of my friends remarked that Singapore may not have been kind to JBJ while he was alive, but history will record that JBJ was the man that started the reform of Singapore’s political system.

Our children will thank JBJ for his contributions. I am truly grateful.

Rest in peace in the arms of the Father, Mr JBJ.