Raising awareness of the need to engage the Pioneer Generation – 20 Nov 2014
Empower Advisory in yet another community outreach, raised awareness of the need to engage the Pioneer Generation meaningfully and at the same time delight members of the public. A bonus that it was picked up by Stomp, resulting in more than 17,000 views.
More tables will be distributed over the next few weeks! Where? It’s anyone guess…
Our Best!
Empower Advisory Team
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
MAS trying to weed out Bogus, Scam-Investment Scheme Operators – 23 July 2014
Through new proposed regulations, now open for public consultation, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) is trying to close the loopholes that scam operators like Sunshine Empire, the Gold Guarantee and their black sheep incarnations in other guise and forms have exploited and hurt many Singaporeans.
There are many schemes and products that claim to offer us profits. MAS does not seek to assess the merit of each scheme or product offered. Regulation cannot guarantee the viability of products offered, or that the products will deliver on promised returns. Consumers must get this point.
MAS is focused on regulating capital markets-like products that are deliberately structured to escape regulation.
Currently some schemes that operate like a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) are not regulated unlike other CIS. MAS intends to bring all such schemes under the same CIS regulations to try to weed out bogus, scammish or high risk operators.
MAS is proposing to extend its regulatory perimeters to include the following two types of arrangements:
(i) Buy-back arrangements involving gold, silver and platinum (“precious metals”); and
(ii) Collectively-managed investment schemes, being arrangements that display all characteristics of a regulated collective investment scheme.
Now, what is a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS)?
CIS are arrangements in respect of securities or futures, commodities, real estate (i.e plantation, landbanking, buildings, building units etc) that exhibit ALL of the following characteristics:
(i) Participants have no day-to-day control over management of the property (“lack of day-to-day control”);
(ii) Property is managed as a whole by or on behalf of the scheme operator (“collectively managed”);
(iii) Participants‟ contributions are pooled (“pooled contributions”);
(iv) Profits or income of the scheme from which payments are to be made to the participants are pooled (“pooled profits”); and
(v) Purpose or effect of the arrangement is to enable participants to participate in profits arising from the scheme (“rights to participate in pooled profits”).
As management of the scheme is entrusted to the scheme operator who has broad discretion to deal with scheme property, this raises concerns of transparency and accountability. Proper CIS that are widely offered to retail investors are subject to prospectus disclosure requirements, authorisation or recognition requirements, investment restrictions and business conduct rules on an ongoing basis.
What MAS is proposing?
1) CIS scheme operators must now comply with the provisions in the CIS Code which ensures that CIS offered to retail investors are subject to appropriate safeguards, including safeguards against liquidity, valuation and custody risk.
2) CIS scheme operators must be regulated as licensed fund managers. Existing operators will be required to obtain a licence if they wish to take on new investors or offer additional units of the scheme to existing investors.
What you must take note of!
1) If you have already invested in such a CIS scheme, whether in plantation, or individual tree investment or in shared floors in medical suites in Philippines or Malaysia, do contact your operators when you can get back your investment returns. The concern is if such operators stop offering their schemes (because they fail to comply with the provisions in the CIS Code and cannot qualify as licensed fund managers) after 3Q2015, there is a chance they cannot take on new investors and just pack up and go.
2) Even if MAS push through the regulation change, it does not mean that the market will no longer have investment scams. There will still be operators out to scam you or even lie to you that they have fulfilled MAS regulations. Just like even if there are strict criminal punishments in Singapore, Singapore is not crime-free.
3) Another analogy is this. Just like it’s the general rule that you should only go to licensed doctors to diagnose and treat you, there will still be fake or unqualified “doctors” that will try to sell you magic pills that cause you more harm than good
4) You will still have bad investments marketed to you by operators, perhaps in a more creative ways that circumvent the tighter regulations going forward.
5) The regulations if passed and implemented is expected to take a year and take effect in 3Q2015.
6) In the meantime, you may have aggressive operators approaching you to put money into their risky scheme before they have to comply with tighter regulations in 3Q2015
7) Be Alert!
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
Good Common Sense returns to the Public Service – 18 July 2014
A day after our Blog posting, Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim instructed the National Library Board (“NLB”) to place ‘And Tango Makes Three’ and ‘The White Swan’ in its adult section, instead of destroying them.
It’s a sweet victory for common sense that has been lacking in the entire tango between NLB and the public.
TGIF, everyone! And prayers for the tragic victims of MH17. Common sense could have prevented the tragedy but again someone, somewhere kept quiet that other carriers have switched to safer routes weeks and months before. Don’t let yourself down. Make a stand. Doing the right things has never been easy.
On a lighter note, NLB can consider hiring these 4 Ah Mahs for PR communication. It’s a pity we do not see these dialects ads made for Singaporeans on TV due to our bilingual policy. Nevertheless, enjoy the cantonese version below and youtube for the hokkien and teochew versions as well!
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
Can Penguins, Public Officers and Singaporeans Tango? – 17 Jul 2014
Ever since it became public that the National Library Board (“NLB”) would remove and destroy from its children collection, three titles: And Tango Makes Three, The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption, and Who’s In My Family: All About Our Families, Singaporeans have parked themselves in two distinctive camps, with some expressing disdain and others expressing support.
The first book, And Tango Makes Three, has two male penguins who behave as though they are in love and raise a baby penguin. The second book, The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption, depicts two female partners trying to adopt a baby from China. The third, Who’s In My Family: All About Our Families, features various family structures including parents of the same gender.
NLB’s action, and the strong vocal reaction of the public (online and offline) made international news and at the point of my writing is still fueling vigorous debate in and outside Singapore.
To be clear, the government is not against single parent family that began as a two parent family where the couple comprises a male and a female. It is perfectly understandable that one spouse pass away earlier or leaves the family through a divorce and separation. Some of our ministers come from single parent families due to the scenarios as described above.
What the government does not want to promote is
1) A family structure that starts off with a male or a female who decides that a spouse is unnecessary to raise a kid and adopts a kid for that purpose.
2) A family structure that starts off with a couple of the same gender who then may/may not adopt a kid to raise
The ripples of the fallout caught me by surprise as prominent writers and panelists associated with NLB events began to pull out to make their stand. Was this something NLB had anticipated from its apparent unilateral action? Or had NLB been caught flat-footed by a tide of strong disagreement, even from families which belong to the current societal norm.
I am not convinced that access to these books sow the seeds of homosexuality thoughts in a child. I did not read any of the three titles when I was a kid, growing up. But an incident I still recall struck me as parallel to the reaction I might have if I have read these books. I remembered once, I had a book on animals and I asked my mother why the parents of the baby look alike. Are they fathers or mothers? She replied she could not tell as well. Then she asked me if I preferred to have two fathers or two mothers? I chuckled and replied that I prefer to have a father and a mother because it feels more natural to me.
I believe that every person should have the right to be true to himself. Just like you should not force me to be a homosexual, I have no right to force a homosexual to be otherwise.
The debate whether homosexuality is nurture vs nature has no clear conclusion and I do not want to add to the debate, statistics and studies. Are we really so influenced by what we read and see as a kid? When I watched Superman flying, my mother did not have to tell me that it was just make-believe. I knew that if I tried to leap off a building, it would have been the end of me. Was it just me, growing up in a modest family to have common sense? Or do we underestimate how much kids can understand reality even from a young age?
One typical argument for the banning of the three titles is that children should be allowed to decide for themselves without undue influence, (often when they are older) if they are homosexuals. Assuming if a particular kid is indeed a homosexual, can you imagine the pain and turmoil he will have to endure growing up? Would he be teased or bullied? Would he experiment to convince himself of his orientation? Would he grow up thinking that something is wrong with him or worse, obsess that the “devil” resides in him?
No one should have to grow up thinking something is wrong with himself. Such books give an opportunity for parents to identify potential struggles the child might be going through in silence. What if a daughter says, “Mommy, actually I don’t like boys. I prefer to play with the gals.” This could just be a growing up phase and nothing to worry too much about. Or perhaps there is more behind those words. It’s up to the parent then to decide the next course of action or acceptance. I can’t speak for other parents as they would have different philosophies with regards to this issue. What is worth thinking is that no one should have to grow up thinking something is wrong with himself.
If the government’s stand is to have the kid decide for himself when he is older, then by having the books removed, it does not want the chance (no matter how remote or impossible) that one becomes homosexual by the process of nurture. I find it quite incredulous that such books can even be thought as the catalyst for such a transformation. Yet, the flipside is, don’t these books help you as a parent to start a conversation to suss out your kid’s inherent inclination? Or at least open their eyes to the different relationships in the world. Just like I didn’t think I could fly like Superman when I was a kid, parents need not worry that their kid would point to the story book penguins rightaway and declare, I want to be a homosexual too. She might blurt out, “I want to try to raise an egg with jie jie, can I, Mommy? Don’t freak out. She’s not being homosexual. Kids can say the darnest things. But other parents might see it in a more apocalyptic way. First she wants to raise an egg with jie jie. What if next time she wants to raise an egg with our neighbours’ daughter?
If you are chuckling at the paranoia, you do see my point. It takes more than a book.
Between the polarizing alternatives of pulping the aforementioned books or leaving the books where they are, I wonder why a compromise of restricting access to the books and classifying these books as reference (with parental guidance) was not put forward to the public? My concern and bigger worry is whether such an alternative had been actually considered by NLB internally but ultimately quashed.
I can imagine such a typical conversation. Let’s call subordinate (S) and Boss (B)
(B) Here we go again. A member of the public, with several others have appealed that we remove these books from our shelves [Shows (S) the email and the list of three books].
(S) I read these books before. Were there not cleared by NLB? How did these 3 books appear on our shelves in the first place?
(B) Don’t ask me. I did not purchase these titles. They were recommended books and I think these books promote discussion and adds to the variety of books here. But nevermind what I think, what can we do?
(S) It’s a sensitive issue. You know these books don’t just mention same gender couple, they also talk about single parent family structure. My concern is that these structures are very real in Singapore and if we remove them, Singaporeans in non-traditional family structures may think that the government is slighting them.
(B) I don’t think so. I’m sure they are smart enough to know that the government is not against single parent family due to normal circumstances such as a spouse passing on early or leaving the family after a separation or divorce.
(S) Any way we can edit the books?
(B) [Laughing] Eh, you think what? Like a R(A) movie? Can snip here and there and the story can still flow. We can’t do this to hardcopies. The so call offending bits are all over the books. You either tear out pages or use a black marker to cover things up. No. no, that’s too clumsy, let’s not go into this.
(S) Hmm, ok. So it’s out of the question. We don’t have to remove these books entirely.
(B) Meaning?
(S) Well, just like, you know the adult reference section, we could house them in a similar section in the children’s section.
(B) Interesting. Go on.
(S) Only kids accompanied by parents can read them within the library. Such a list of parental guidance books will be made available. Parents and their kids will have to register their names and NRIC. We have backend systems that should be able to identify if they are indeed related. Once cleared, they will be able to access a room where the books are, equipped with the usual gates or video surveillance to ensure the books are not removed from that special room without permission
(B) That’s actually a plausible idea but I can see the pain of doing so. Let me elaborate.
1) Parents will complain, “Eh are you tracking me and spying on me that I’m exploring such books with my kids.”
2) Pro-normal family advocates will say, “Why are the books still available at the library? Is the government pro-normal family stand consistent or have they changed position?”
3) Those on the other side will say, “Yeah, the books are still available, but why in a restricted section? You mean to treat us as pariahs? Why not let the books stay where they are. Parents don’t have to borrow if they are not uncomfortable. We’re not forcing them or their kids to touch these books anyway.”
4) We have to spend resources and money to make your idea possible. And mind you, we have so many libraries. Do you know how the cost will add up? And don’t remind me of the tender procedure, please.
5) Assuming, we achieve all this and spend all this money, will this be the end? Will the public thank us for striving for a win-win solution. Or after putting our neck on the chopping board, people still complain and we get burnt for it?
(S) [Almost inaudible] But we spend so much for NDP anyway….
(B) What did you say?
(S) Eh, nothing. I see your point boss. But just removing the books from our shelves appears very draconian. There are far worse books that depict violence and all that.
(B) I’m not going into that debate with you. It’s a slippery …Arg, even I can’t take that slope anymore.
(S) Why don’t we explore my idea with the other bosses and think of ways to cut the cost of implementation? Say house all these books in a dedicated children reference section in the Central Library at Bras Basah?
(B) S, you’re a really good staff. I feel your passion to do the right thing. But even if we bring down the cost, we’ll still get complaints.
(S) But maybe less complaints and less unhappiness over this. The fallout could be bad. What if we lose the support of our local writers and judges at our upcoming event. Must we also polarize our community this way?
(B) Don’t worry. I think they are rational people who will understand our difficult circumstance and trade-offs…Arg..why did I use that phrase again???
(S) B, I really, really think we have to re-consider this. Our leaders have talked about engaging the community. We should at least explain to the public the alternatives we have considered and why we have chosen our course of action. And I don’t mean removing the books but just restricting access to them.
(B) [Getting impatient] You still don’t get it, S. Our good intention will not be appreciated.
(S) But Boss, I…
(B) [Sighs] This discussion is over. We’ll remove these books
(S) Are we going to destroy these books?
(B) Not my call. Is up to the other bosses. Our discussion is just whether we can think up an alternative win-win solution.
(S) But I gave you mine.
(B) I said enough
(S) Ok, why don’t we hold our decision and maybe have a public consultation first. At least give everyone a forum to say their piece.
(B) And if the ultimate decision is still to remove the books, won’t some think we’re just holding a wayang show?
(S) But we won’t know the final decision until then. Things might be different.
(B) This discussion is over. Thank you, S. Sorry to hold you back from knocking off.
S leaves B’s office. He takes a deep breath and shakes his head. Why are the right things so hard to do, he thinks to himself.
Were level headed public officers not able to convince their bosses otherwise? As an ex-public officer, I’m disturbed by this thought. It continues to haunt me as I witness the saga unfold over the past 2 weeks.
At the root of the unhappiness is the impression that decisions that matter are implemented unilaterally without scant regards to discussion and engagement. PM Lee and Head of Civil Service have spoken repeatedly of the need to gain the trust of the people through better engagement. Why then are their messages not passed down properly throughout the ranks of public officers and civil servants.
If trust in the authorities is eroding, this is just another fine example how to make it worse. Public officers who care about the solidarity of our nation, I urge you to continue valiantly to press hard internally for win -win solutions for our nation. Your ideas and proposal may be squashed from time to time but like what have been said many times, it’s never easy to do the right things.
When I was in the the civil service, it was never about maneuvering for the next plush promotion and posting. It was about doing the right things, even though they were not the easiest things to do.
Don’t make this NLB incident the harbinger of things to come. Treat this as the lowest point in gaining the trust of the people and fight hard to get it right again.
Many have criticized Catherine Lim’s open letter which hit on the lost of trust in the government. Lost of trust can be provoked by many events and incidences. In the light of the NLB saga, are we not witnessing one such event?
However the plus side of it all is that no one can now accuse Singaporeans of being apathetic these days. There are many Singaporeans who now stand up for what they believe and rally others to a common cause. We have to take the difference in opinions positively. Only when we can openly debate differences yet peacefully co-exist together, can we truly call ourselves a First World People with a First World tolerance and understanding to our fellow Singaporeans in a First World country.
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
Feedback to the Government, following Catherine Lim’s open letter & the “Return Our CPF” Rally at Hong Lim Park – 12 Jun 14
In early Jun 2014, Ms Catherine Lim wrote an open letter to our Prime Minister, and highlighted what she observed as a growing disconnect between Singaporeans and their government, how Singaporeans “no longer trust their government and that the government appears not to care about regaining their trust”. Quickly, it attracted online comments and criticism from all sides of the fence, with the majority appearing to agree with her.
Trust is the firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. Trust goes beyond fact. It resides in the emotional connection. Is our government oblivious to this? No. Mr Peter Ong, Head of Civil Service is most certainly aware of it having introduced an invigorated goal for our public service – “One Trusted Public Service with Citizens at the Centre”. He knows that public officers need to be able to step in the shoes of a citizen, see through his eyes and feel his heartbeat before crafting and implementing policies.
If the administrative arm of the government is fully aware of the way forward to engage Singaporeans, surely the political arm is also informed. What could be the reason then for the swelling discontent that we see today, where a significant population of voters is not convinced or content with the government’s explanation to their question? With experienced public communication divisons, surely the government can refute any accusation convincingly and factually?
With regards to the Central Provident Fund’s (“CPF”) interest rate returns to members, there is no convincing rebuke when critics point to more stellar returns from the pension funds of other countries. Global ranking of pension schemes do not put Singapore’s CPF scheme at the top. A most recent one, the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index ranked Singapore seven out of 20 countries. Singapore scored a “B” which is for pension systems with “a sound structure, with many good features, but has some areas for improvement”.
For any government that points to its stellar track record and performance, a finishing that is not quite a top 3 leaves the authority open to questions. And the less convincing the replies to questions raised by citizens who compare how the other pension schemes operate and perform, the deeper the wedge in the distrust and emotional disconnect.
Money is a very emotive issue and the CPF debate and “Return our CPF” rally at Hong Lim Park is not about an esoteric issue such as freedom of speech that not all Singaporeans can or care to relate to. The CPF debate tugs at every Singaporean and with that attention, invite immense scrutiny, ranging from Members of Parliament to the coffee-shop uncle on how it can be improved.
I previously served in the public service and was tasked with my team to cut business red tape. Change is not the easiest thing to push through and in my work, the phrase I dread to hear most was “It’s a slippery slope.” To the uninitiated, the slippery slope argument goes like that. It begins by suggesting that if we do something, often with good intent, it will lead to another and before we know it, we’ll be doing something that has negative consequences. So in conclusion, we shouldn’t be doing the first action in the first place. And that is one of the greatest obstacles for meaningful change to take place.
This sort of defensive reasoning is frustrating because there is no reason that one event must inevitably follow the first without a series of graduations between the two events.
Other similar “change killing” phrases you might be familiar with could be
1) We risk opening a Pandora box
2) We will open the floodgates. Will you bear the consequences?
3) When it goes well, all is good. But when things go wrong, we’ll get the blame
4) If you give them what they want, they will push for more
3 years ago, when the idea of nationalizing our public transport system was floated in response to the swell of public dissatisfaction over the reliability and comfort of public transport, it was dismissed quickly. One can almost imagine a “slippery slope” reasoning in the background. Fast forward 3 years later and Singapore has approved a “semi-nationalization” of public bus services in Singapore where the government will take over ownership, provision and funding of all bus operating assets and infrastructure from private bus operators.
We have to stop raising a default “slippery slope” defense when re-evaluating schemes and polices. Instead of assuming the slippery slope slides downwards forever, pave it with asphalt and line up checkpoints along the way so that there is opportunity for braking (intervention) should unintended consequences happen.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is another dangerous idea. One common school of thought is that if you make things better without people asking for it, they start taking you for granted and all your efforts will be unappreciated. Supporters of this thinking fail to realize that if every time one needs to complain to see improvements, the recipient of the improvements soon becomes jaded and cynical. Compare this to someone who keeps receiving pleasant surprises. Will the recipient start taking things for granted? Debatable. Will the recipient get an emotional connection? Most definitely. This is because the recipient begin to trust that the powers-to-be anticipate their needs and difficulties and act, to the best of their ability.
It is commendable that the CPF scheme enforces discipline on the withdrawal of one’s savings. After reading how Madam Pusparani Mohan, 34 squandered nearly $1 million in insurance payouts and donations from the public after her husband was killed in a freak accident in March 2012, Singaporeans are aware of how one can easily mishandle money.
But the biggest grouse is the increasing Minimum Sum amount that one must leave in his Ordinary Account (“OA”) and the 10 years gap between age 55 and 65 before the mandated Minimum Sum is disbursed back as a monthly payout. Some Singaporeans do struggle financially within the 10 year gap due to genuine circumstances.
There are two practical suggestions I would like to make. I am not aware of all the counter-proposals suggested to the current CPF scheme so I do apologize for any overlap.
1) Currently, CPF monies are invested by the CPF Board (CPFB) in Special Singapore Government Securities (“SSGS”) that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government. The proceeds from SSGS issuance are then invested by the Government via MAS and GIC. To ensure that CPF members’ fund can grow to meet and exceed the mandated minimum sum, raise the interest rate in years that GIC investments have performed well. Fund performance will fluctuate from year to year, so it is reasonable to have some window for deviation. There is no obligation to maintain a higher interest rate that is not sustainable. Retain the current floor interest rate and reward CPF members in good years. If there are 10 good years of fund performance, then CPF members get 10 years of high interest rate return. Interest rate returns must be depoliticized and overseen by an independent body so it does not risk becoming an election carrot or stick.
2) Regardless of the Minimum Sum one has retained in the OA, allow for staggered withdrawal, say up to 10% of it per year. For those with genuine financial hardship, a higher percentage could be considered. To incentivize those who keep it there for a full 10 years, a higher interest rate could be offered.
There will be lots of difficulties, real or imagined, to improve or overhaul the CPF scheme. I take pride as I recollect the time I spend with my team and colleagues from other ministries and statutory boards standing up against “slippery slope” and “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” arguments as we pressed hard for business rule change. Governance is about doing better for Singaporeans, anticipating their needs, understanding the difficulties they face and find solutions. Do this and they will stand by you, mind and heart. And in the long road ahead, there will be many more “slippery slope” and “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” arguments to squash.
Douglas
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
SHARES
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
Citizen-centric Productivity Thoughts from Abroad – 9 Jun 2014
It’s been a while since we posted an entry. Douglas was away in Europe and is finally back in Singapore for Empower Advisory’s 8th public outreach on the 29th Jun. He would like to share his thoughts with our blog readers.
========================================================================================
Dear Empower Blog readers,
As a former team lead with the Ministry of Trade and Industry tasked with cutting business red tape in Singapore, I have great passion in making things better and easier, always keeping in mind a way to strike a meaningful balance between the interests of all stakeholders.
Our government has been urgently encouraging small medium enterprises (SMEs) to roll up their sleeves and invest in productivity measures to cope with the higher cost of doing business here. There are grants available for SMEs to invest in productivity. This is further helped by tax incentives and cash rebate provided an SME fulfill certain criteria.
But what about productivity measures that affect ordinary citizens who are not running businesses? How can productivity measures actually improve the lives of ordinary Singaporeans without causing a strain on resources? And that is what I would like to share with you based on some observations on my trip.
1
a) In France, it is common for public buses to have 3 doors. This makes it very productive as it greatly improves commuter flow up and down the bus. Commuters do not have to crowd near the door like in Singapore because they are within easy reach of an exit door no matter where they stand.
b) The floor is flat throughout so that it minimizes the risk of someone tripping over.
c) There is an even distribution of sitting and standing space.
d) The information display inside is superb as it is large and clear and tells you what the stops are. Check out also the onboard camera to nail that pesky molester!
Makes you wonder why we don’t see such public buses on our roads yet. Will we see them soon? If we announce to the world that Singapore is world class, then we should be transporting our commuters in smart, productive buses such as this.
2
a) In Paris, there are double decker subway underground trains that connect you to the outskirts. They are comfortable and can handle peak traffic easily. Who would have thought it practical to have double decker trains? Maybe too expensive, even.
b) But someone had the foresight to create the infrastructure to allow for such double decker trains. Opened in 1900 and upgraded and expanded continuously, the city’s subway system, the Paris Métro, serves about 5.2 million passengers daily. SMRT in comparison, serves about 1.9 million passengers daily
3
Some ticket machines in France have a button for the visually impaired to press and receive audio instructions how to navigate the interface and buy tickets independently. This is what an inclusive society should provide. And isn’t it productive that you do not need a staff to standby to help?
4
It is a free public toilet that self clean the interior automatically after each use. Amazing? Absolutely. And because it does not stink, there is an information map so one can check his bearings without smelling someone’s business.
========================================================================================
There are more examples but I do not want to turn this post into a novel. These examples just show us what is possible in Singapore. Singapore is a small city-state. We have no excuse to be complacent but every reason to emulate or adapt good practices already implemented in other countries. How can we make lives better for Singaporeans who are generally reasonable citizens. How can we make Singapore a more inclusive society, going beyond slogans and campaigns.
For those who have not been to our public outreach, welcome to the upcoming one on 29th Jun (Sun) 2014. See ya there at our brand new venue 20 floors up in the sky!
Douglas Chow
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
Psst..pst…Millionaire wannabes…listen here – 20 Mar 2014
Although having a million bucks isn’t as impressive as it once was, it’s still nothing to sneeze at. Well, guess what? A millionaire who is truly financially savvy won’t be easily recognizable. This is what we have dug out from one of them at knifepoint!
1. He always spends less than he earns. In fact his mantra is, over the long run, you’re better off if you strive to be anonymously rich rather than deceptively poor.
2. He knows that patience is a virtue. The odds are you won’t become a millionaire overnight. If you’re like him, your wealth will be accumulated by diligently saving and investing your money.
3. When you go to his modest apartment, you’re going to be drinking his favourite 3 in 1 coffee instead of Starbucks. And if you need a lift, well, you’re going to get a ride in his simple sedan. And if you think that makes him cheap, ask him if he cares. (He doesn’t.)
4. He pays off his credit cards in full every month. He’s smart enough to understand credit cards are for earning rewards and points. Period.
5. He realized early on that money does not buy happiness. If you’re looking for nirvana, you need to focus on attaining financial freedom.
6. He never forgets that financial freedom is a state of mind that comes from being debt free on a net asset basis. Best of all, it can be attained regardless of your income level.
7. He understands that money is like a baby; it is incapable of managing itself. After all, you can’t expect your money to grow and mature as it should without some form of credible money management.
8. He’s a big believer in paying yourself first. Paying yourself first is an essential tenet of personal finance and a great way to build your savings and instill financial discipline.
9. Although it’s possible to get rich if you spend your life making a living doing something you don’t enjoy, he wonders why you do. Life is too short.
10. He knows that failing to plan is the same as planning to fail. He also knows that the few millionaires that reached that milestone without a plan got there only because of dumb luck or wealthy parents.
11. When it came time to set his savings goals, he wasn’t afraid to think big. Financial success demands that you have a vision that is significantly larger than you can currently deliver upon.
12. Over time, he found out that hard work can often help avoid a lot of financial mistakes. You don’t want to make too many of them. And he wonder why in this day and age, people never learn from scams, preferring to outsource their responsibilities to smooth-talking operators instead of taking charge of their investments.
13. He realizes that bad things happens, whether you like it or not. That’s why you’re a fool if you don’t insure yourself against risk. The potential for bankruptcy is always just around the corner and can be triggered from multiple sources: the death of the family’s key bread winner, divorce, or disability that leads to a loss of work.
14. He understands that time is an ally of the young. He was fortunate enough to begin saving and investing in his twenties so he could take maximum advantage of time.
15. Even though he has a job that he loves, he doesn’t have to work anymore because everything he owns is paid for – and has been for years.
16. He’s not impressed that you drive a luxury car and live in a mansion that’s too big for your family of four.
So that’s it. Now you know what your millionaire neighbor won’t tell you!
This was adapted from a longer post that originally appeared at Len Penzo dot Com. Copyright 2014.
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
SHARES
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
You are MORE than what your Job defines – 19 Feb 2014


Tragically, a young 33 year old JP Morgan junior investment banker jumped to his death on 18 Feb 2014 from the top of Charter House in Central Hong Kong, where JP Morgan has its Asia headquarters
A smashed iPhone and Blackberry phone was found beside his lifeless body. According to sources, the Hong Kong Chinese native had confided in his colleagues that he was facing tremendous stress at work. Other sources pointed that he had received news that he was facing the sack. Security tried in vain to stop him from jumping 30 storeys to his death.
Nobody should have to face such an untimely demise due to work related stress. Remember, that you are defined by more than your job. A job ultimately compensates you for the time and effort you exchange to make profits for the company. To put it bluntly, a job pays you a wholesale rate while your employer charges the ultimate clients a retail rate. That’s all there is to it.
Don’t let work stress rob you of your life. See a counselor or quit your job if necessary. Take a step back to evaluate if the current job is really for you. The litmus test is this. If you find yourself relishing the challenges of your job and actively seek solutions, then all is good. But if you don’t, you might simply be in the wrong job, that’s all. There’s no shame in walking away. Just like you can’t get an Olympic swimmer to challenge for top honors in a 100m land race, you can’t perform if you’re not in the right job and environment that plays to your strength. Do you think Michael Phelps, the American champion swimmer and the most decorated Olympian of all time can ever beat the fastest man alive, Usain Bolt in a 100 meter dash? Likewise, do you think Usain Bolt can ever outswim Micheal Phelps?
Your life is limited. Your work is not. All of us are dispensable. See how Apple continues to shine with the departure of Steve Jobs? We wish that all friends of Empower Advisory find a fulfilling, satisfying vocation!
“At Empower Coaching, we believe that our Clients are unique, and responsible people who delight in moving their lives forward. Together, we can!”
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
The Chinese Government Vs Nu Skin – 21 Jan 2014
The Chinese government is investigating whether direct sales cosmetics company Nu Skin Enterprises (Nu Skin) is an “illegal pyramid scheme” that brainwashes its Chinese direct selling sales troop.
Prior to the investigation, the Communist Party-owned People’s Daily, disturbed by Nu Skin’s highly charged sales seminar had accused Nu Skin of fraudulently exaggerating the youth-regeneration benefits of its products and promoting a cult-like enterprise controlling middle-class Chinese consumers.
Critics of direct sales companies have long pointed out that they are essentially pyramid schemes, that rely more on recruiting new salespeople and selling the products to them rather than unrelated customers.
As the pressure mounts, similar MLM companies such as Herbal Life, which also has a large presence in China has seen their share prices tumble in the past week, as activists and their victimized former direct salespeople urge the US government to investigate these mega MLM companies’ business practice. See how much these highly profitable companies’ share price has dropped in just a week.
Dr Jon M. Taylor, once a Nu Skin distributor, and now arguably US’s foremost critic of the MLM business structure does not mince words. “MLMs and pyramid schemes are the same thing…People have a problem saying that, but I don’t. All of these [MLM] companies involve a pay-to-play model where participants are required to pay for their own paycheck.”
And that creates an environment that preys on the poor and the uneducated and those who need to work from their homes, ….It’s wholly unfair,” Dr Taylor says. “It’s like a fast-spreading cancer.”
It’s anyone’s guess how hard the Chinese Government will go down on Nu Skin but this is just the beginning.
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
* Download “Empower Advisory” App on your mobile phone/device to get INSTANT Updates on Deals, Events and More!
* Simply Scan the QR Code on the left using your mobile phone, follow the link and install the App!
* If you are already accessing this page on your mobile phone, click on the QR Code, follow the link and install the App !
The reality of “unfair” retail tenant treatment – 28 Dec 2013
In most major malls in Singapore these days, we see lots of large standalone flagship stores. You know which ones they are.
Research by Savills showed that big brands receive deep discounts from mall managers, while small and mid-sized retail tenants are subjected to rents at market rates. Contrary to what you may think that the bigger brands have simply outbid the smaller retail players to secure a space, they have in fact been invited to stroll into the mall by paying as low as 1/3 the market rate per square foot.
If this unequal treatment for smaller retailers who might be offering a different product is not bad enough, the small retailers have to contend with rising rental rate which Ms Jannie Chan, president of the Singapore Retailers Association (SRA), estimates go up by 5 to 10 per cent every few years.
Little wonder then that the smaller retailers have gone online to avoid the onerous and unfair rental treatment.
Our Best, Always
Share our postings, be our Facebook Ambassador and win prizes!
SHARES