Jan 25, 2008
Two men detained for planning acts of terror
Another has been placed under a restriction order; all three were 'self-radicalised'
By Zakir Hussain
TWO men have been detained under the Internal Security Act for planning acts of terror after being influenced by radical ideas in print, on video and online.
They had travelled abroad, one made bombs, and both wanted to fight in such places as Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya and die as martyrs.
A third man involved in their activities was last month placed under a restriction order (RO), which allows him to stay home but limits his activities outside.
All three are aged 26.
In making the announcement yesterday, the Home Affairs Ministry also said it was releasing six men: five Jemaah Islamiah (JI) detainees and a man who helped the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a Philippine militant group.
Even as terror groups such as the JI have been crippled, the latest arrests mark a new threat, which the Government last year described as a 'troubling new phenomenon' of self-radicalised individuals who imbibe extreme ideology independent of direct recruitment by established terror groups.
Security analysts say this trend of 'DIY (do-it-yourself) terrorists' is set to grow as such ideas multiply on the Internet on as many as 6,000 websites.
The first new detainee is Muhammad Zamri Abdullah, who had gone abroad to try to join a 'mujahidin network', whose aim was to wage armed jihad - a struggle he believed was religiously justified.
Since 2003, he had also spread his radical ideas and succeeded in influencing two: Maksham Mohd Shah, who, like him, was detained last month, and Mohammad Taufik Andjah Asmara, who was put under an RO last month.
The ministry gave no further details of the trio.
The arrests come less than a year after 'self-radicalised' former law lecturer Abdul Basheer Abdul Kader was detained after making plans to join the Taleban.
In its statement, the ministry traced the latest detainees' militant activities to 2006, as they prepared for 'armed jihad'.
It started with Zamri falsely claiming in early 2006 that he was the local representative of a foreign radical group.
He made Maksham and Taufik members by taking the bai'ah, or oath of allegiance, to him, and collected money from them to donate to another militant foreign group.
In mid-2006, his interest in militant rhetoric online led him to befriend a foreigner in the JI's Al-Ghuraba cell .In November that year, Zamri and Maksham went abroad to meet the foreigner.
They were planning to take the bai'ah to leaders of radical groups in that country to join 'mujahidin networks'.
Zamri believed doing so would let them get training and eventually travel overseas to wage armed jihad in places such as Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya.
One leader they wanted to meet was a known leader of a terrorist group.
But both detainees could not get an appointment with the foreign leaders.
The ministry also said Maksham, apart from developing radical ideas, made improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Inspired by news footage showing Molotov cocktails used in attacks, he experimented with sparklers to make the bombs.
Later, to avoid detection here, he went overseas to source materials commonly used to make IEDs, such as ball bearings and fertilisers.
He also initiated overseas camping trips after watching terrorist training videos.
Both Maksham and Zamri used the trips 'to toughen themselves mentally and physically so that they would be prepared to undertake armed jihad', the ministry said.
As for Taufik, Maksham introduced him to Zamri in 2003. Like the duo, he became 'self-radicalised'.
But the ministry said its investigations showed that he had begun to distance himself from them and their activities.
Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) president Alami Musa last night said the three were 'clearly misguided', and their plans could have caused the loss of innocent lives and destabilised society.
'This is not the true teaching of Islam or any civilisation,' he said.
zakirh@sph.com.sg
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Health-care costs jumped 6.2% last year
Health-care costs jumped 6.2% last year
Explaining the rise, minister gives the assurance that costs will remain affordable
By Lynn Lee
22 Jan 2008
THE cost of health care shot up last year by 6.2 per cent, a big jump over the annual average of the previous five years.
The rise between 2002 and 2006 was an average 2.4 per cent a year.
In releasing the figures yesterday, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan attributed the 'higher than normal' increase to the jump in medical fees and prices of Chinese medicine.
He was responding to MP Sam Tan (Tanjong Pagar GRC), who asked why health-care costs had shot up and what aid poor Singaporeans would receive.
Replying, Mr Khaw explained that the health-care inflation rate was measured by the price changes of a basket of items and the cost of three, in particular, had soared.
They were: fees in public and private hospitals; outpatient specialist fees in public health-care institutions; and the cost of Chinese herbs and treatment from a Chinese physician.
For instance, traditional Chinese medicine cost 33 per cent more last year than in 2005.
The minister traced the various increases to these factors: higher oil prices causing imports to cost more; the rise in wages of health-care workers; and the goods and services tax (GST) going up from 5 per cent to 7 per cent last July.
These were also the factors that fuelled Singapore's inflation rate, which hit 4.2 per cent in November and could cross the 5 or even 6 per cent mark this year.
The fast-rising cost of living was also noted earlier in the House by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Four MPs, including Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC), raised questions on, among other things, the plight of the poor as prices rise for necessities such as housing.
The Finance Minister assured Singaporeans that the Government would continue with its 'targeted and efficient' help schemes, such as Workfare for needy older workers.
Mr Khaw made a similar pledge. Public health-care costs, he said, would always stay affordable, even though some inflation was inevitable.
The needy are already getting help in several ways.
For instance, the Government has absorbed the GST hike on their health-care bills.
It is also reviewing MediShield to see if this national medical insurance scheme can cover bigger hospital bills.
But, Mr Khaw said, the Government was not in favour of increasing hospital subsidies for the lower-income. Subsidies now stand at 80 per cent for C-class wards and 65 per cent for B2 class.
'I think it is unwise to vary (the subsidy levels),' he responded to Mr Tan's suggestion. One reason: The level of subsidy will be refined when means testing takes effect.
It will give the rich a lower subsidy than the poor for the ward that they choose. The aim is to give scarce resources to those who need them most.
For those in dire need, they can turn to the Government's health-care safety net Medifund to pay their medical bills. Around 98 per cent of those who apply for help get it.
Sometimes, it results in them getting a 100 per cent subsidy on their hospital bill, said Mr Khaw.
Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong asked why the average Medifund payout had decreased from $174 in 2001 to $132 in 2006.
Mr Khaw said the figure was not the average payout per person. Rather, out of the 300,000 or so approved applications last year, some would have been repeat applicants.
Thus, the payout would vary depending on how much a person had received, and whether it was for inpatient or outpatient bills.
'So I'm not surprised it should come down or go up, and I don't think we should read any more than that into it. The key point is, those who need help will be helped,' he said.
lynnlee@sph.com.sg
Explaining the rise, minister gives the assurance that costs will remain affordable
By Lynn Lee
22 Jan 2008
THE cost of health care shot up last year by 6.2 per cent, a big jump over the annual average of the previous five years.
The rise between 2002 and 2006 was an average 2.4 per cent a year.
In releasing the figures yesterday, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan attributed the 'higher than normal' increase to the jump in medical fees and prices of Chinese medicine.
He was responding to MP Sam Tan (Tanjong Pagar GRC), who asked why health-care costs had shot up and what aid poor Singaporeans would receive.
Replying, Mr Khaw explained that the health-care inflation rate was measured by the price changes of a basket of items and the cost of three, in particular, had soared.
They were: fees in public and private hospitals; outpatient specialist fees in public health-care institutions; and the cost of Chinese herbs and treatment from a Chinese physician.
For instance, traditional Chinese medicine cost 33 per cent more last year than in 2005.
The minister traced the various increases to these factors: higher oil prices causing imports to cost more; the rise in wages of health-care workers; and the goods and services tax (GST) going up from 5 per cent to 7 per cent last July.
These were also the factors that fuelled Singapore's inflation rate, which hit 4.2 per cent in November and could cross the 5 or even 6 per cent mark this year.
The fast-rising cost of living was also noted earlier in the House by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Four MPs, including Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC), raised questions on, among other things, the plight of the poor as prices rise for necessities such as housing.
The Finance Minister assured Singaporeans that the Government would continue with its 'targeted and efficient' help schemes, such as Workfare for needy older workers.
Mr Khaw made a similar pledge. Public health-care costs, he said, would always stay affordable, even though some inflation was inevitable.
The needy are already getting help in several ways.
For instance, the Government has absorbed the GST hike on their health-care bills.
It is also reviewing MediShield to see if this national medical insurance scheme can cover bigger hospital bills.
But, Mr Khaw said, the Government was not in favour of increasing hospital subsidies for the lower-income. Subsidies now stand at 80 per cent for C-class wards and 65 per cent for B2 class.
'I think it is unwise to vary (the subsidy levels),' he responded to Mr Tan's suggestion. One reason: The level of subsidy will be refined when means testing takes effect.
It will give the rich a lower subsidy than the poor for the ward that they choose. The aim is to give scarce resources to those who need them most.
For those in dire need, they can turn to the Government's health-care safety net Medifund to pay their medical bills. Around 98 per cent of those who apply for help get it.
Sometimes, it results in them getting a 100 per cent subsidy on their hospital bill, said Mr Khaw.
Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong asked why the average Medifund payout had decreased from $174 in 2001 to $132 in 2006.
Mr Khaw said the figure was not the average payout per person. Rather, out of the 300,000 or so approved applications last year, some would have been repeat applicants.
Thus, the payout would vary depending on how much a person had received, and whether it was for inpatient or outpatient bills.
'So I'm not surprised it should come down or go up, and I don't think we should read any more than that into it. The key point is, those who need help will be helped,' he said.
lynnlee@sph.com.sg
Monday, January 21, 2008
57,000 stuck by a 7 hour breakdown in MRT train service
21 Jan
57,000 stuck by 7-hour breakdown in MRT train service
Disruption of services from Pasir Ris to Tanah Merah caused by stalled maintenance work train.
SOME 57,000 were stranded when MRT train services on the East-West line between Pasir Ris and Tanah Merah stations were disrupted on Monday morning.
There was no train service from 5.28 am till 12.45 pm between the two stations. Normal service resumed after that.
The disruption was caused by the breakdown of a maintenance work train which was carrying out works between Tampines and Simei (westbound) MRT stations, said SMRT in a statement on Monday.
'There were some damages to the maintenance works train and we are investigating the cause,' said SMRT, the train operator.
During the breakdown, eastbound trains were turned around at Tanah Merah MRT station.
Buses were deployed to ferry stranded passengers between the two stations, with the first arriving at Tanah Merah MRT station at 5.48 am.
Forty SMRT buses and 30 Singapore Bus Service Transport buses were sent to Pasir, Ris, Tampines, Simei and Tanah Merah stations to pick up the commuters.
The disruption also affected wesbound shuttle trains serving Tampines, Simei and Tanah Merah MRT stations from 8.28 am.
They were running at 28-minute intervals to ease passenger flow at Tampines and Simei MRT stations.
SMRT said passengers were informed of the service disruption and the free bus bridging services through train and station announcements, notices and rail travel information system in the stations and broadcast channels.
Many passengers also had difficulty getting taxis as most of them were occupied.
SMRT said passengers who were unable to complete their journey due to the disruption can claim a full fare refund from the Passenger Service Centre at any of the 51 SMRT stations within the next three working days, from Monday to Thursday.
SMRT has apologised for the inconvenience caused.
57,000 stuck by 7-hour breakdown in MRT train service
Disruption of services from Pasir Ris to Tanah Merah caused by stalled maintenance work train.
SOME 57,000 were stranded when MRT train services on the East-West line between Pasir Ris and Tanah Merah stations were disrupted on Monday morning.
There was no train service from 5.28 am till 12.45 pm between the two stations. Normal service resumed after that.
The disruption was caused by the breakdown of a maintenance work train which was carrying out works between Tampines and Simei (westbound) MRT stations, said SMRT in a statement on Monday.
'There were some damages to the maintenance works train and we are investigating the cause,' said SMRT, the train operator.
During the breakdown, eastbound trains were turned around at Tanah Merah MRT station.
Buses were deployed to ferry stranded passengers between the two stations, with the first arriving at Tanah Merah MRT station at 5.48 am.
Forty SMRT buses and 30 Singapore Bus Service Transport buses were sent to Pasir, Ris, Tampines, Simei and Tanah Merah stations to pick up the commuters.
The disruption also affected wesbound shuttle trains serving Tampines, Simei and Tanah Merah MRT stations from 8.28 am.
They were running at 28-minute intervals to ease passenger flow at Tampines and Simei MRT stations.
SMRT said passengers were informed of the service disruption and the free bus bridging services through train and station announcements, notices and rail travel information system in the stations and broadcast channels.
Many passengers also had difficulty getting taxis as most of them were occupied.
SMRT said passengers who were unable to complete their journey due to the disruption can claim a full fare refund from the Passenger Service Centre at any of the 51 SMRT stations within the next three working days, from Monday to Thursday.
SMRT has apologised for the inconvenience caused.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Overhaul of bus system for smooth, fast trips
Overhaul of bus system for smooth, fast trips
Govt to control planning of routes, bus market to be open to competition
By Goh Chin Lian
BUS travel here will undergo an overhaul to give commuters a faster, smoother and more pleasant ride.
This will happen in two stages over the next few years. First, the Government will take back control of the planning of routes from the two public transport companies.
The aim: to find the fastest and best route for commuters by bus and MRT - not how to make more money.
Then, it will open up the bus market to more competition. The idea is that contest could lead to better ways of doing things, and maybe, even lower costs.
More immediately, transfers will become easier and cheaper, and commuters will get more information on the go, to plan how best to make their journey.
Transport Minister Raymond Lim gave the details yesterday in the first of three key policy speeches he will make this month on how travel by bus, rail and car will change.
This shake-up of the land transport landscape foresees that by 2020, 14.3 million journeys will be made every day on this small island, up from 8.9 million now.
The future will be gridlock and pollution if many more people take to cars, he said.
The thing to do now is to move more people to public transport: Mr Lim's target is 70 per cent for all journeys in the morning peak by 2020, up from 63 per cent now.
But what will it take, he asked, for the majority to choose the bus or MRT over the car?
His ministry's solution for buses combines radical strokes with fine tweaking.
It is the fruit of a year-long study to take stock of a 1996 road-map on land transport and lay out a new one, good for the next 10 to 15 years.
The planners turned to consultants who assessed what worked for such cities as London, Hong Kong and Melbourne, and sought public views.
The 'new philosophy', as Mr Lim calls it, is to plan transport through the eyes of the commuter - from the time he thinks about making his journey to the time he reaches his destination.
'Our land transport system must be planned and built for people, not vehicles,' he said.
'Can people get to a train station or bus stop quickly and comfortably? Are the connections good? How long is the total journey time and waiting time between transfers? How crowded are the buses and trains? Can people get timely and user-friendly travel information?'
The Government will consider such concerns when it plans the bus routes and opens them up to the best bidder to run them, possibly as early as 2010.
It will specify standards for what commuters, in a 2007 official poll released yesterday, see as still lacking in the current system - less overcrowding, shorter waiting times.
If the consultants are right, the market has room for a few more bus operators.
These major changes aside, the planners are also tweaking the system to make transfers seamless.
The fare system will be changed so that commuters do not have to pay when making transfers. They will be charged just for the total distance travelled.
They will get a new season pass for use on all trains and buses, regardless of operator.
And the wait for the connection will be shorter. Buses will be given more priority on the roads later this year.
Some commuters, in welcoming the changes, say they are overdue.
Tampines GRC MP and deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport Ong Kian Min expects complaints from commuters whose routes get re-drawn by the Land Transport Authority, but thinks they should not sidetrack people from the overall good the changes bring.
'I hope the minister will have the political will and the support from the people to see this through,' said Mr Ong.
It is not clear yet if bidding for the bus routes will eventually push fares up or down. Mr Lim said new gains by operators as a result of opening the market to competition could be reflected in the formula that caps fare rises.
The two bus operators were optimistic about their prospects when the bus routes are carved up for bidders.
SBS Transit, which has a bigger share, saw the share price of its parent ComfortDelGro fall five cents to $1.61, while its own stayed unchanged at $2.83. SMRT's rose one cent to $1.73.
All eyes are now on the coming announcements. Mr Lim said there will be a need to reduce the vehicle growth rate and raise Electronic Road Pricing charges.
Motorists and aspiring car owners can do their sums then, on whether it makes sense to make their other car the bus or the MRT.
chinlian@sph.com.sg
Govt to control planning of routes, bus market to be open to competition
By Goh Chin Lian
BUS travel here will undergo an overhaul to give commuters a faster, smoother and more pleasant ride.
This will happen in two stages over the next few years. First, the Government will take back control of the planning of routes from the two public transport companies.
The aim: to find the fastest and best route for commuters by bus and MRT - not how to make more money.
Then, it will open up the bus market to more competition. The idea is that contest could lead to better ways of doing things, and maybe, even lower costs.
More immediately, transfers will become easier and cheaper, and commuters will get more information on the go, to plan how best to make their journey.
Transport Minister Raymond Lim gave the details yesterday in the first of three key policy speeches he will make this month on how travel by bus, rail and car will change.
This shake-up of the land transport landscape foresees that by 2020, 14.3 million journeys will be made every day on this small island, up from 8.9 million now.
The future will be gridlock and pollution if many more people take to cars, he said.
The thing to do now is to move more people to public transport: Mr Lim's target is 70 per cent for all journeys in the morning peak by 2020, up from 63 per cent now.
But what will it take, he asked, for the majority to choose the bus or MRT over the car?
His ministry's solution for buses combines radical strokes with fine tweaking.
It is the fruit of a year-long study to take stock of a 1996 road-map on land transport and lay out a new one, good for the next 10 to 15 years.
The planners turned to consultants who assessed what worked for such cities as London, Hong Kong and Melbourne, and sought public views.
The 'new philosophy', as Mr Lim calls it, is to plan transport through the eyes of the commuter - from the time he thinks about making his journey to the time he reaches his destination.
'Our land transport system must be planned and built for people, not vehicles,' he said.
'Can people get to a train station or bus stop quickly and comfortably? Are the connections good? How long is the total journey time and waiting time between transfers? How crowded are the buses and trains? Can people get timely and user-friendly travel information?'
The Government will consider such concerns when it plans the bus routes and opens them up to the best bidder to run them, possibly as early as 2010.
It will specify standards for what commuters, in a 2007 official poll released yesterday, see as still lacking in the current system - less overcrowding, shorter waiting times.
If the consultants are right, the market has room for a few more bus operators.
These major changes aside, the planners are also tweaking the system to make transfers seamless.
The fare system will be changed so that commuters do not have to pay when making transfers. They will be charged just for the total distance travelled.
They will get a new season pass for use on all trains and buses, regardless of operator.
And the wait for the connection will be shorter. Buses will be given more priority on the roads later this year.
Some commuters, in welcoming the changes, say they are overdue.
Tampines GRC MP and deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport Ong Kian Min expects complaints from commuters whose routes get re-drawn by the Land Transport Authority, but thinks they should not sidetrack people from the overall good the changes bring.
'I hope the minister will have the political will and the support from the people to see this through,' said Mr Ong.
It is not clear yet if bidding for the bus routes will eventually push fares up or down. Mr Lim said new gains by operators as a result of opening the market to competition could be reflected in the formula that caps fare rises.
The two bus operators were optimistic about their prospects when the bus routes are carved up for bidders.
SBS Transit, which has a bigger share, saw the share price of its parent ComfortDelGro fall five cents to $1.61, while its own stayed unchanged at $2.83. SMRT's rose one cent to $1.73.
All eyes are now on the coming announcements. Mr Lim said there will be a need to reduce the vehicle growth rate and raise Electronic Road Pricing charges.
Motorists and aspiring car owners can do their sums then, on whether it makes sense to make their other car the bus or the MRT.
chinlian@sph.com.sg
Medishield
Jan 19, 2008
There are difficulties in making MediShield compulsory for all: Khaw
By Jaime Ee
Mr Khaw Boon Wan said there will always be a small group who will refuse to be insured because they do not think they need it. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM
HEALTH Minister Khaw Boon Wan said there are practical difficulties in making the national health insurance scheme MediShield compulsory for all.
There will always be a small group who will refuse to be insured because they think they don't need it, he said.
As it is, he said the opt-out scheme has been 'quite effective'. Among working adults, more than 90 per cent are already insured.
'For a national system, once you have more than 90 per cent, we are home.'
Mr Khaw was responding to Madam Halimah Yacob's suggestion to cover people beyond the age of 85 and to make the MediShield scheme compulsory, as means testing could hurt those uninsured even harder due to higher out-of-pocket payments.
Changing the level of subsidy for the middle income group is not something that should be done in isolation, Madam Halimah, the head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, said in her keynote speech at the 2nd International Conference of the Asia-Pacific Society for Healthcare Quality on Thursday.
Mr Khaw, in illustrating the difficulties of implementing a compulsory scheme, cited examples from Korea, Japan and Taiwan, which has mandatory national health insurance
There are difficulties in making MediShield compulsory for all: Khaw
By Jaime Ee
Mr Khaw Boon Wan said there will always be a small group who will refuse to be insured because they do not think they need it. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM
HEALTH Minister Khaw Boon Wan said there are practical difficulties in making the national health insurance scheme MediShield compulsory for all.
There will always be a small group who will refuse to be insured because they think they don't need it, he said.
As it is, he said the opt-out scheme has been 'quite effective'. Among working adults, more than 90 per cent are already insured.
'For a national system, once you have more than 90 per cent, we are home.'
Mr Khaw was responding to Madam Halimah Yacob's suggestion to cover people beyond the age of 85 and to make the MediShield scheme compulsory, as means testing could hurt those uninsured even harder due to higher out-of-pocket payments.
Changing the level of subsidy for the middle income group is not something that should be done in isolation, Madam Halimah, the head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, said in her keynote speech at the 2nd International Conference of the Asia-Pacific Society for Healthcare Quality on Thursday.
Mr Khaw, in illustrating the difficulties of implementing a compulsory scheme, cited examples from Korea, Japan and Taiwan, which has mandatory national health insurance
Why this commuter gave up on buses and MRT
Jan 18, 2008
Why this commuter gives up on buses and MRT
By Tania Tan
Jeanne Conceicao stated 'too many decision points' as her reason for giving up on public transport. Her example was cited by Transport Minister Raymond Lim for the need to improve the local bus system. -- ST PHOTO: ASHLEIGH SIM
WHAT would it take to convince a commuter such as Ms Jeanne Conceicao, who is learning how to drive, to give up the idea of buying a car and rely on public transport?
That is the challenge facing transport planners, said Transport Minister Raymond Lim on Friday.
He highlighted how, fed-up with the uncertainty and inconvenience she experienced in daily commute, that she gave up on buses and train and opted to travel by taxi to work, and would be buying a car.
Relating her travel woes, the minister said at the launch of the land transport gallery on Friday: 'Taking the bus or MRT was just too wearying.'
'Too many decision points, she said. She had to take a feeder bus to the MRT station, hop on the North-South line, then transfer onto the East-West Line, and then hop onto another feeder bus that took her to Heng Mui Keng Terrace where she worked.'
'The uncertainty of the journey time - how long it would take for the feeder bus to arrive; whether taking the MRT to Raffles Place or Jurong East interchange to transfer would be faster - it took too much out of her.In the end, she decided to take a taxi, and would be buying a car.'
VIDEO
Making the bus, train my 'other car'
(4:21)
Why open up bus industry?
(0:54)
'This really drives home the point that we need to improve the connectivity of our hub-and-spoke system, in particular the integration between the feeders, trunk buses and the MRT.
Only then can we ensure seamless transfers and make the whole public transport journey as convenient as possible.'
Ms Conceicao, 42, who was a member of a focus group discussions on public transport, and now works as a real estate agent, told The Straits Times on Friday: 'I was just sick of all the travelling time.'
Her daily commute from home to the Institute of Policy Studies where she was a research fellow, took one hour and 40 minutes - which started with a half-hour journey from her home in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 to the MRT station.
She then hopped on to the MRT train at Buona Vista station and then caught a bus to her office.
The biggest hassle was boarding a feeder bus, as it was often packed. 'I'm not even asking for seat, just to get on the bus,' she rued. She soon abandoned buses and trains, in favour of taxis to and from work - which cost her over $600 monthly.
'I might be complaining too much, but I just wanted to arrive at work in a good mood,' she said.
Why this commuter gives up on buses and MRT
By Tania Tan
Jeanne Conceicao stated 'too many decision points' as her reason for giving up on public transport. Her example was cited by Transport Minister Raymond Lim for the need to improve the local bus system. -- ST PHOTO: ASHLEIGH SIM
WHAT would it take to convince a commuter such as Ms Jeanne Conceicao, who is learning how to drive, to give up the idea of buying a car and rely on public transport?
That is the challenge facing transport planners, said Transport Minister Raymond Lim on Friday.
He highlighted how, fed-up with the uncertainty and inconvenience she experienced in daily commute, that she gave up on buses and train and opted to travel by taxi to work, and would be buying a car.
Relating her travel woes, the minister said at the launch of the land transport gallery on Friday: 'Taking the bus or MRT was just too wearying.'
'Too many decision points, she said. She had to take a feeder bus to the MRT station, hop on the North-South line, then transfer onto the East-West Line, and then hop onto another feeder bus that took her to Heng Mui Keng Terrace where she worked.'
'The uncertainty of the journey time - how long it would take for the feeder bus to arrive; whether taking the MRT to Raffles Place or Jurong East interchange to transfer would be faster - it took too much out of her.In the end, she decided to take a taxi, and would be buying a car.'
VIDEO
Making the bus, train my 'other car'
(4:21)
Why open up bus industry?
(0:54)
'This really drives home the point that we need to improve the connectivity of our hub-and-spoke system, in particular the integration between the feeders, trunk buses and the MRT.
Only then can we ensure seamless transfers and make the whole public transport journey as convenient as possible.'
Ms Conceicao, 42, who was a member of a focus group discussions on public transport, and now works as a real estate agent, told The Straits Times on Friday: 'I was just sick of all the travelling time.'
Her daily commute from home to the Institute of Policy Studies where she was a research fellow, took one hour and 40 minutes - which started with a half-hour journey from her home in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 to the MRT station.
She then hopped on to the MRT train at Buona Vista station and then caught a bus to her office.
The biggest hassle was boarding a feeder bus, as it was often packed. 'I'm not even asking for seat, just to get on the bus,' she rued. She soon abandoned buses and trains, in favour of taxis to and from work - which cost her over $600 monthly.
'I might be complaining too much, but I just wanted to arrive at work in a good mood,' she said.
Jan 16, 2008
Sharp rise in car numbers as fewer taken off roads
9% increase last year may lead to fewer COEs being released this year
By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent
THE number of cars on Singapore roads grew by a record 9 per cent last year to almost 515,000, despite Government efforts to manage growth at a far slower pace.
The increase was three times the rate prescribed by the country's COE system.
While new car sales fell by almost 9 per cent, far fewer vehicles were either scrapped or exported, leading to the record increase, the latest figures from the Land Transport Authority showed.
Just over 64,000 cars were taken off the road last year, 23 per cent fewer than in 2006.
'I would say scrapping was overdone in 2005 and 2006,' said Mr Neo Nam Heng, president of the Automotive Importers and Exporters Association.
'Today, 80 per cent of our cars are below four years old.'
DELAYED EFFECT
'I would say scrapping was overdone in 2005 and 2006.'
MR NEO NAM HENG, president of the Automotive Importers and Exporters Association
RELATED LINKS
How the numbers stack up
Last year's unusually high growth in the number of cars on the road is expected to have a profound impact on future supplies of COEs. As a result, the car industry is bracing itself for a contraction.
Mr Glenn Tan, chief executive of Subaru agent MotorImage, said: 'This year will be a tough year for the motoring industry.'
Mr Mark Choong, managing director of Toyota distributor Borneo Motors, said the supply of COEs in the last couple of years was bolstered by extra certificates the Government released with the introduction of electronic road- pricing in 1998.
'Going forward, I don't think there will be anymore of these extra COEs,' he said.
Mr Neo added that the April COE offering would include '60,000 or fewer' certificates set aside to replace vehicles expected to be scrapped or exported this year. Last year, that number reached 86,000.
In a shrunken market, motor traders expect several changes, including:
smaller and cheaper cars will lose market share, as budget buyers are edged out;
likewise, off-peak cars - low-tax cars with restricted periods of usage - will lose some shine. Their fixed tax rebate of $17,000 will become smaller in relation to the price of a car; and big cars will continue to grow in popularity.
There is however a silver lining in the cloudy forecast.
Mr Eddie Loo, managing director of used car trader and importer Car Times, said: 'I think the demand for used cars will rise.'
The used car market has been in the doldrums in recent years because of falling new car prices.
christan@sph.com.sg
Sharp rise in car numbers as fewer taken off roads
9% increase last year may lead to fewer COEs being released this year
By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent
THE number of cars on Singapore roads grew by a record 9 per cent last year to almost 515,000, despite Government efforts to manage growth at a far slower pace.
The increase was three times the rate prescribed by the country's COE system.
While new car sales fell by almost 9 per cent, far fewer vehicles were either scrapped or exported, leading to the record increase, the latest figures from the Land Transport Authority showed.
Just over 64,000 cars were taken off the road last year, 23 per cent fewer than in 2006.
'I would say scrapping was overdone in 2005 and 2006,' said Mr Neo Nam Heng, president of the Automotive Importers and Exporters Association.
'Today, 80 per cent of our cars are below four years old.'
DELAYED EFFECT
'I would say scrapping was overdone in 2005 and 2006.'
MR NEO NAM HENG, president of the Automotive Importers and Exporters Association
RELATED LINKS
How the numbers stack up
Last year's unusually high growth in the number of cars on the road is expected to have a profound impact on future supplies of COEs. As a result, the car industry is bracing itself for a contraction.
Mr Glenn Tan, chief executive of Subaru agent MotorImage, said: 'This year will be a tough year for the motoring industry.'
Mr Mark Choong, managing director of Toyota distributor Borneo Motors, said the supply of COEs in the last couple of years was bolstered by extra certificates the Government released with the introduction of electronic road- pricing in 1998.
'Going forward, I don't think there will be anymore of these extra COEs,' he said.
Mr Neo added that the April COE offering would include '60,000 or fewer' certificates set aside to replace vehicles expected to be scrapped or exported this year. Last year, that number reached 86,000.
In a shrunken market, motor traders expect several changes, including:
smaller and cheaper cars will lose market share, as budget buyers are edged out;
likewise, off-peak cars - low-tax cars with restricted periods of usage - will lose some shine. Their fixed tax rebate of $17,000 will become smaller in relation to the price of a car; and big cars will continue to grow in popularity.
There is however a silver lining in the cloudy forecast.
Mr Eddie Loo, managing director of used car trader and importer Car Times, said: 'I think the demand for used cars will rise.'
The used car market has been in the doldrums in recent years because of falling new car prices.
christan@sph.com.sg
Indian Foreign Policy
Jan 16, 2008
India charts its own foreign policy: PM Singh
The Prime Minister moots nuclear cooperation and reassures Beijing over Delhi's close ties with Washington
By Sim Chi Yin, China Correspondent
IN BEIJING - INDIAN Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday pledged to chart an independent foreign policy that seeks closer links with China, holding out the possibility of civilian nuclear energy cooperation.
Acknowledging Beijing's discomfort over New Delhi's recent cosying up to Washington, Dr Singh told an audience of top Chinese social scientists that India would strive for 'strategic autonomy in the world'.
'The independence of our foreign policy enables us to pursue mutually beneficial cooperation with all major countries of the world,' he said in a televised half-hour speech at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think-tank.
Dr Singh, the first Indian premier to visit China in five years, has been quick to dismiss talk that New Delhi is being drawn into a regional 'concert of democracies' to contain China.
Indeed, he stressed time and again during his three-day trip that Asia and the world have enough room to accommodate the rise of both China and India.
The two emerging giants, already the world's fastest-growing economies, are building on their booming trade ties to shelve their decades-old mistrust and broaden their interaction.
Beyond trade - which is now targeted to reach US$60 billion (S$86 billion) by 2010 - the two sides will deepen cooperation in military ties as well as science and technology, as spelt out in a series of agreements reached by Dr Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Monday.
Recognising that exploding growth in both India and China will spur a thirst for energy, Dr Singh highlighted possible collaboration with Beijing on civilian nuclear energy projects in yesterday's speech.
He said: 'We can do much more to jointly develop clean and energy-efficient technologies...India seeks international cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy, including with China.'
Dr Singh's invitation to China came as India's efforts to use nuclear energy to meet its soaring electricity needs took a fresh blow yesterday, with Australia reversing its previous government's plan to sell uranium to India.
Canberra's reason for doing so is that New Delhi has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
New Delhi's deal for the United States to provide India with nuclear technology and fuel already stands mired in opposition at home.
On his China trip, Dr Singh is believed to have also sought Beijing's backing, which is crucial to putting the India-US deal into operation.
China is a key member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which must endorse the safeguards New Delhi is negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency to make the India-US deal work.
Although Beijing is displeased with the New Delhi-Washington deal, Dr Singh likely won its tacit support, say observers.
During Dr Singh's visit, which wrapped up yesterday, the two neighbours - their ties frozen for decades after the 1962 border war - have been keen to paint themselves as 'partners...not rivals', as Premier Wen put it on Monday.
Reporting no breakthrough on their long-running border dispute, Dr Singh vowed to work with China in what he termed 'the Asian way' - 'avoiding confrontation and building trust, confidence and consensus'.
He also said there was a need for the people of the two countries to get to know each other better to 'remove misconceptions and prejudices'.
The Indian leader met Chinese President Hu Jintao and Parliament chief Wu Bangguo yesterday before flying home last night.
Underscoring the two countries' warming ties, Mr Hu told Dr Singh that their governments should solve their disputes through dialogue and deepen the foundation of their bilateral ties with regular exchange of visits by top leaders.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY TRACY QUEK
simcy@sph.com.sg
Making a 'lake' of South China Sea
PAN-TONKIN GULF ECONOMIC COOPERATION SCHEME
Making a 'lake' of South China Sea
By Li Mingjiang, For The Straits Times
15 Jan 2008
DESPITE the reduced tension in the South China Sea over the past few years, diplomatic tussles over sovereignty and resource claims have never been absent. This is evidenced by the recent war of words between Hanoi and Beijing when China staged a military exercise near the disputed Paracels and decided to set up Sansha county in Hainan to manage jurisdictional matters in the South China Sea.
This notwithstanding, the general climate remains one in which the six claimants - China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei - prefer cooperation to conflict. This is largely due to their willingness to put aside their disputes over some areas in favour of common economic development and regional strategic interests. Various confidence-building measures, in particular the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, have contributed to the relative tranquillity in this maritime region.
A new proposal initiated by China may provide further incentive for the various parties to move beyond the status quo. This proposal calls for a regional economic cooperation framework known as the Pan-Tonkin Gulf Regional Economic Cooperation scheme, which is strongly pushed by the local government of China's Guangxi Autonomous Region.
The proposed scheme, if eventually adopted by China and Asean, has the potential to further de-securitise the South China Sea and could lead to breakthroughs in multilateral cooperation in such areas as maritime transportation, environmental protection, and joint exploitation of resources.
The origin of the proposal is the China-Asean Free Trade Agreement (FTA) framework in which Guangxi, together with Vietnam, proposed a Tonkin Gulf regional economic cooperation zone. Apart from Vietnam, this scheme would include China's Guangxi, Guangdong and Hainan provinces. Starting from early 2006, Guangxi began to push for a wider Pan-Tonkin Gulf economic cooperation scheme to include parts of China's south-west and south-east, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei.
The expansion of the original sub-regional economic zone is an effort on the part of Guangxi to construct its coastal area as a new economic growth centre in China. It is also partly an effort to compete with Yunnan province in strengthening economic cooperation with South-east Asia.
Guangxi proposed that the Pan-Tonkin Gulf scheme be part of what is called a physically M-shaped structure in China-Asean cooperation: the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS); the Nanning to Singapore corridor (Mainland economic cooperation); and the Pan-Tonkin Gulf zone (Maritime economic cooperation). Guangxi does not have advantages in the GMS, but the Pan-Tonkin Gulf zone and the M-shaped strategy will allow it to play a leading role in China-Asean economic cooperation.
Former Guangxi Party leader Liu Qibao proposed that the Pan-Tonkin Gulf cooperation scheme be officially incorporated into the Asean-China FTA framework. The scheme has won the support of top Chinese leaders. During an inspection visit to Guangxi in August last year, President Hu Jintao encouraged Guangxi to further open up and take full advantage of its littoral position to push for multilateral economic cooperation beyond the Tonkin Gulf.
Premier Wen Jiabao also made encouraging comments on the proposal both at the memorial summit of the China-Asean summit in November 2006 and at the 10th China-Asean summit in January last year. Guangxi's local government recently submitted the official policy proposal to the central government in Beijing. Various ministries are currently reviewing and revising the proposal. With the top leadership favouring the initiative, the Pan-Tonkin Gulf cooperation scheme is likely to be launched and pushed by China in the China-Asean bilateral framework.
There are a few reasons why leaders in Beijing think favourably of this initiative. It is perceived as useful in rapidly developing the economy in Guangxi, still a relatively poor province, and the economic development in China's vast under-developed mid-western regions. Also, it is believed to contribute positively to the China-Asean FTA because those South-east Asian countries involved in the cooperation are relatively developed.
The proposal has won in-principle approval from other regional states, including Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, apart from
Vietnam. Guangxi has already begun to set up an expert team together with the Asean Secretariat and the Asian Development Bank to push for the scheme.
The Pan-Tonkin Gulf cooperation plan, if fully implemented, would be very significant for security in the South China Sea. This is because the envisioned cooperation would turn the sea into some sort of 'internal lake' of the regional economic zone.
A high degree of security in the South China Sea is, in turn, a necessary condition for the regional cooperation scheme to function smoothly. More importantly, in the proposed plan, there are a few
areas that directly deal with the South China Sea. For instance, there is a recommendation for a network of ports surrounding the South China Sea. There is also a proposal for cooperation in fisheries, maritime energy, maritime environment and tourism around the sea.
Substantive cooperation in any of these functional areas would mean a major breakthrough in the South China Sea dispute. Chinese analysts and top leaders have commented that the emergence of the Pan-Tonkin Gulf zone will help initiate China-Asean dialogue and cooperation in maritime affairs. It will also serve as a platform for communication and coordination among various parties on the South China Sea.
The Pan-Tonkin Gulf regional cooperation, now strongly pushed by China, is likely to give further impetus for Beijing to engage other claimant states on the South China Sea dispute. If the relevant Asean countries eventually agree to join hands in the new sub-regional cooperation scheme, the time will soon come when all parties in the South China Sea dispute earnestly tackle this maritime issue. They will find it helpful to revisit many of those policy recommendations that were proposed at the Indonesia-initiated workshops in the 1990s and various joint development schemes or schemes of sharing resources that had been suggested by the scholarly community.
This new economic integration project, if ultimately realised, will give the region some reason to be optimistic about the stability of the South China Sea in the near future.
Li Mingjiang is an Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
Jan 14, 2008
China + India = Chindia, a strategic partnership
By C. Raja Mohan, For The Straits Times
IN THEIR talks this week in Beijing, the visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao hope to unveil a new phase in bilateral relations.
After the unreal idealism of the 1950s, war and conflict during the 1960s and 1970s, and a wary normalisation of ties during the 1980s and 1990s, India and China are seeking to inject real strategic content into their relationship.
Both countries are today acutely aware of their own changing positions in the global power hierarchy. Self-assurance in both the capitals has begun translating into a new engagement that promises to transcend the traditional emphasis on contentious bilateral issues.
Although much of the world has been animated by the rise of China and the emergence of India, and their potential impact on the world - from global warming to the Asian balance of power - Beijing and New Delhi were burdened for long by a narrow bilateral framework.
To be sure, the idea of 'Chindia' - of China and India taking on the world - was invented a few years ago in New Delhi. On its part, China in recent years has repeatedly reaffirmed its desire for a genuine friendship with India.
Despite their aspirations for a strategic partnership, mutual suspicion over Tibet, an intractable boundary dispute, and differences over Pakistan were among the many issues that limited the scope of the relationship in the past.
It is only now, amidst a grudging acceptance of each other's rise, that China and India have begun to explore a broader agenda of regional and international cooperation.
Until recently, China used to view India as a mere regional power within the subcontinent. Worse still, the Chinese establishment was convinced that India, with its internal chaos, would never get its act together.
Over the last decade, India has surprised China in many ways. India not only defied the international system by conducting nuclear tests in May 1998, but it has also successfully negotiated its entry into the nuclear club by cultivating a special relationship with the Bush administration. India's unprecedented high growth rates in recent years have also made it clear to Beijing that the economic momentum behind New Delhi's rise is now real and consequential.
New Delhi's successful big power diplomacy - including a rapprochement with Washington and Tokyo - has made Beijing aware of India's potential to constrict China's room for manoeuvre. As India pulls away from its dispirited sibling Pakistan, China's traditional policy of balancing India within the subcontinent has become unsustainable.
India, too, has steadily come to terms with the implications of China's rise. The Indian industry, which initially feared economic competition from Beijing, now sees China as a huge economic opportunity. Trade between the two nations has increased about a hundredfold - from a measly US$300 million (S$430 million) a decade ago to nearly US$38 billion in 2007. The Indian Prime Minister and the Chinese President are now expected to set more ambitious targets for bilateral trade.
India, which in the past was anxious about China's ties with its smaller neighbours, is now reconciled to the inevitability of Beijing's rising profile in and around the subcontinent. For the Indian strategic establishment, the answer lies not in a perennial gripe but in emulating China's forward-looking economic policies towards the neighbours.
Amidst its growing economic and military capabilities, India is now more confident of raising its own profile in the presumed backyard of China - East and South-east Asia.
Given the burden of the past, Dr Singh and Mr Hu are bound to pay some attention to the old bilateral agenda. In their joint declaration, the two sides are likely to review the progress made so far on the boundary dispute and reaffirm their political commitment to its early resolution.
Thanks to a reasonably stable frontier and the new breadth of the bilateral ties, the two leaders are expected to focus on the construction of a partnership that looks at a wider regional and global agenda.
One element of the putative strategic partnership lies in mutual political reassurance that they do not pose a security threat to each other. On the eve of his three-day visit to Beijing, Dr Singh had once again reaffirmed that India will not join any alliance aimed at containing China. Beijing, in turn, has recognised the dangers of pushing India into the arms of the United States and the importance of encouraging New Delhi to take a more relaxed view of China's rise.
Second, India and China are likely to emphasise their shared interest in regional stability in different sub-regions of Asia. The effect that a failed state in Pakistan would have on their own security is likely to nudge Dr Singh and Mr Hu to exchange views on the deepening structural crisis in India's very important western neighbour. While it is premature to talk of Sino-Indian cooperation in stabilising Pakistan, New Delhi's vastly improved relations with Islamabad have begun to alter the old triangular dynamic between India, China and Pakistan.
Beyond the subcontinent, India and China will have to work hard to harmonise their positions in the Central, South-east and East Asian regions. All indications are that there is a new political will in both the capitals to begin a serious conversation about their common neighbourhood.
Third, as their national interests turn global, India and China are beginning to bump into each other in different regions of the world.
Dr Singh and Mr Hu now recognise the importance of minimising the potential for future conflict, and maximising the prospect for greater cooperation on a range of issues - from global trade talks to international terrorism, and from African development to energy security.
As the two leaders work on a significant regional and global agenda, sceptics around the world will be looking for any movement on an issue that has cast a sha-
dow over the future of Sino-Indian relations - China's ambiguity regarding India's nuclear deal with the United States.
An explicit signal from the Chinese leadership during Dr Singh's visit that Beijing will not oppose the implementation of the Indo-US civil nuclear initiative, and might even be prepared to embark on atomic energy cooperation with India, could fundamentally alter the popular Indian misgivings about China and pave the way for a real strategic partnership between the two Asian giants.
C. Raja Mohan is a professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
WORKING TOGETHER
b>Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao now recognise the importance of minimising the potential for future conflict, and maximising the prospect for greater cooperation on a range of issues - from global trade talks to international terrorism, and from African development to energy security.
China + India = Chindia, a strategic partnership
By C. Raja Mohan, For The Straits Times
IN THEIR talks this week in Beijing, the visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao hope to unveil a new phase in bilateral relations.
After the unreal idealism of the 1950s, war and conflict during the 1960s and 1970s, and a wary normalisation of ties during the 1980s and 1990s, India and China are seeking to inject real strategic content into their relationship.
Both countries are today acutely aware of their own changing positions in the global power hierarchy. Self-assurance in both the capitals has begun translating into a new engagement that promises to transcend the traditional emphasis on contentious bilateral issues.
Although much of the world has been animated by the rise of China and the emergence of India, and their potential impact on the world - from global warming to the Asian balance of power - Beijing and New Delhi were burdened for long by a narrow bilateral framework.
To be sure, the idea of 'Chindia' - of China and India taking on the world - was invented a few years ago in New Delhi. On its part, China in recent years has repeatedly reaffirmed its desire for a genuine friendship with India.
Despite their aspirations for a strategic partnership, mutual suspicion over Tibet, an intractable boundary dispute, and differences over Pakistan were among the many issues that limited the scope of the relationship in the past.
It is only now, amidst a grudging acceptance of each other's rise, that China and India have begun to explore a broader agenda of regional and international cooperation.
Until recently, China used to view India as a mere regional power within the subcontinent. Worse still, the Chinese establishment was convinced that India, with its internal chaos, would never get its act together.
Over the last decade, India has surprised China in many ways. India not only defied the international system by conducting nuclear tests in May 1998, but it has also successfully negotiated its entry into the nuclear club by cultivating a special relationship with the Bush administration. India's unprecedented high growth rates in recent years have also made it clear to Beijing that the economic momentum behind New Delhi's rise is now real and consequential.
New Delhi's successful big power diplomacy - including a rapprochement with Washington and Tokyo - has made Beijing aware of India's potential to constrict China's room for manoeuvre. As India pulls away from its dispirited sibling Pakistan, China's traditional policy of balancing India within the subcontinent has become unsustainable.
India, too, has steadily come to terms with the implications of China's rise. The Indian industry, which initially feared economic competition from Beijing, now sees China as a huge economic opportunity. Trade between the two nations has increased about a hundredfold - from a measly US$300 million (S$430 million) a decade ago to nearly US$38 billion in 2007. The Indian Prime Minister and the Chinese President are now expected to set more ambitious targets for bilateral trade.
India, which in the past was anxious about China's ties with its smaller neighbours, is now reconciled to the inevitability of Beijing's rising profile in and around the subcontinent. For the Indian strategic establishment, the answer lies not in a perennial gripe but in emulating China's forward-looking economic policies towards the neighbours.
Amidst its growing economic and military capabilities, India is now more confident of raising its own profile in the presumed backyard of China - East and South-east Asia.
Given the burden of the past, Dr Singh and Mr Hu are bound to pay some attention to the old bilateral agenda. In their joint declaration, the two sides are likely to review the progress made so far on the boundary dispute and reaffirm their political commitment to its early resolution.
Thanks to a reasonably stable frontier and the new breadth of the bilateral ties, the two leaders are expected to focus on the construction of a partnership that looks at a wider regional and global agenda.
One element of the putative strategic partnership lies in mutual political reassurance that they do not pose a security threat to each other. On the eve of his three-day visit to Beijing, Dr Singh had once again reaffirmed that India will not join any alliance aimed at containing China. Beijing, in turn, has recognised the dangers of pushing India into the arms of the United States and the importance of encouraging New Delhi to take a more relaxed view of China's rise.
Second, India and China are likely to emphasise their shared interest in regional stability in different sub-regions of Asia. The effect that a failed state in Pakistan would have on their own security is likely to nudge Dr Singh and Mr Hu to exchange views on the deepening structural crisis in India's very important western neighbour. While it is premature to talk of Sino-Indian cooperation in stabilising Pakistan, New Delhi's vastly improved relations with Islamabad have begun to alter the old triangular dynamic between India, China and Pakistan.
Beyond the subcontinent, India and China will have to work hard to harmonise their positions in the Central, South-east and East Asian regions. All indications are that there is a new political will in both the capitals to begin a serious conversation about their common neighbourhood.
Third, as their national interests turn global, India and China are beginning to bump into each other in different regions of the world.
Dr Singh and Mr Hu now recognise the importance of minimising the potential for future conflict, and maximising the prospect for greater cooperation on a range of issues - from global trade talks to international terrorism, and from African development to energy security.
As the two leaders work on a significant regional and global agenda, sceptics around the world will be looking for any movement on an issue that has cast a sha-
dow over the future of Sino-Indian relations - China's ambiguity regarding India's nuclear deal with the United States.
An explicit signal from the Chinese leadership during Dr Singh's visit that Beijing will not oppose the implementation of the Indo-US civil nuclear initiative, and might even be prepared to embark on atomic energy cooperation with India, could fundamentally alter the popular Indian misgivings about China and pave the way for a real strategic partnership between the two Asian giants.
C. Raja Mohan is a professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
WORKING TOGETHER
b>Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao now recognise the importance of minimising the potential for future conflict, and maximising the prospect for greater cooperation on a range of issues - from global trade talks to international terrorism, and from African development to energy security.
Only Way Out In Sri Lanka Jan 14
Jan 14, 2008 ST
Only way out in Sri Lanka
THE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam score little more than public relations points with their declaration that they would maintain a discredited ceasefire which the Sri Lankan government has said it will formally abandon this week. The outlook is grim. Both sides have missed opportunities to resolve Asia's longest-running civ-
il war. The closest they came to ending the cycle of violence was in 2002 when then prime minister Ranil Wickremasinghe sought to trade autonomy for peace with ethnic Tamils, before president Chandrika Kumaratunga overruled him. Several rounds of talks ended in October 2006, leaving in shreds the truce Norway brokered in 2002. Except for a lull in the December 2004 tsunami aftermath, fighting has continued and threatens to bring back gruesome episodes of suicide bombing, massacre, rape and torture. The conflict has killed over 65,000 civilians since 1972. Both the government and rebel leaders need help to halt the madness.
The antagonists, adequately armed to fight but not to vanquish each other, should by now realise there is no military solution. Partition is out of the question. So is persecution of minorities. The long-term answer is political accommodation through constitutional arrangements that guarantee minority self-rule. But first, hostilities must stop, once again with outside help. The United Nations should step in to help or take over from Norway, which lacks the capacity to enforce a ceasefire. Norwegian efforts, including confidence building and human rights monitoring, did succeed in moderating the conflict before the present breakdown. They point the way forward. With international guarantees and, if need be, a peace-keeping force on the ground, the two sides could refocus on working out devolutionary measures that put regional government in the hands of regional leaders. Constitutional reform also has to include provisions to require leaders in Colombo to take into account minority interests rather than allow them to exploit ethnic fears to build chauvinistic political support.
To avoid forestalling a compromise, Sri Lankan diaspora donors - among 700,000 Tamils and 400,000 to 500,000 Sinhalese abroad - should stop financing the conflict. Their support and influence serve only to harden both sides' positions. Ultimately, it is political leadership within an inclusive constitutional framework that will save Sri Lanka. Sinhalese leaders need to resist ethnic and religious insistence on marginalising the Tamil community. The Tamil Tigers should on their part accept that an independent Eelam is unrealistic and settle for a guaranteed political accommodation.
Only way out in Sri Lanka
THE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam score little more than public relations points with their declaration that they would maintain a discredited ceasefire which the Sri Lankan government has said it will formally abandon this week. The outlook is grim. Both sides have missed opportunities to resolve Asia's longest-running civ-
il war. The closest they came to ending the cycle of violence was in 2002 when then prime minister Ranil Wickremasinghe sought to trade autonomy for peace with ethnic Tamils, before president Chandrika Kumaratunga overruled him. Several rounds of talks ended in October 2006, leaving in shreds the truce Norway brokered in 2002. Except for a lull in the December 2004 tsunami aftermath, fighting has continued and threatens to bring back gruesome episodes of suicide bombing, massacre, rape and torture. The conflict has killed over 65,000 civilians since 1972. Both the government and rebel leaders need help to halt the madness.
The antagonists, adequately armed to fight but not to vanquish each other, should by now realise there is no military solution. Partition is out of the question. So is persecution of minorities. The long-term answer is political accommodation through constitutional arrangements that guarantee minority self-rule. But first, hostilities must stop, once again with outside help. The United Nations should step in to help or take over from Norway, which lacks the capacity to enforce a ceasefire. Norwegian efforts, including confidence building and human rights monitoring, did succeed in moderating the conflict before the present breakdown. They point the way forward. With international guarantees and, if need be, a peace-keeping force on the ground, the two sides could refocus on working out devolutionary measures that put regional government in the hands of regional leaders. Constitutional reform also has to include provisions to require leaders in Colombo to take into account minority interests rather than allow them to exploit ethnic fears to build chauvinistic political support.
To avoid forestalling a compromise, Sri Lankan diaspora donors - among 700,000 Tamils and 400,000 to 500,000 Sinhalese abroad - should stop financing the conflict. Their support and influence serve only to harden both sides' positions. Ultimately, it is political leadership within an inclusive constitutional framework that will save Sri Lanka. Sinhalese leaders need to resist ethnic and religious insistence on marginalising the Tamil community. The Tamil Tigers should on their part accept that an independent Eelam is unrealistic and settle for a guaranteed political accommodation.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Sri Lanka update - 12 Jan 2008
Saturday, 12 January 2008, 11:01 GMT
Sri Lanka claims 59 rebel deaths
By Roland Buerk
BBC News, Colombo
Fifty-nine Tamil Tiger rebels have been killed in the latest fighting in Sri Lanka, the military said, adding that one of its soldiers was also killed.
However, the Tigers, who want an independent state for the Tamil minority, have dismissed the figures.
They have accused the government of making false claims of victories to retain the support of the Sinhalese majority in the south.
The government is to formally pull out of a 2002 ceasefire deal on 16 January.
The pace of fighting in Sri Lanka has picked up since the government gave notice it was abandoning the ceasefire with the Tamil Tigers.
Heavy price
As on earlier days, the battles continued on Friday on the frontlines that fringe rebel-held territory in the north.
A spokesman for the military said 59 Tiger fighters had been killed as well as one soldier.
But the head of the rebels' Peace Secretariat, S Puleedevan, accused Sri Lanka's Ministry of Defence of putting out false propaganda, saying if their figures were to be believed there would not be a single Tamil left on the island.
He said soldiers were trying to push across the frontlines but were being repulsed with casualties.
With the ceasefire formally coming to an end next week there is likely to be a further escalation in the conflict.
The commander of the Army, Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka, has said his aim is to eliminate the Tigers before he leaves office at the end of the year.
But the rebels say they are ready for all-out war, with Mr Puleedevan warning if soldiers take one step into Tiger-controlled territory they would pay a heavy price.
Sri Lanka claims 59 rebel deaths
By Roland Buerk
BBC News, Colombo
Fifty-nine Tamil Tiger rebels have been killed in the latest fighting in Sri Lanka, the military said, adding that one of its soldiers was also killed.
However, the Tigers, who want an independent state for the Tamil minority, have dismissed the figures.
They have accused the government of making false claims of victories to retain the support of the Sinhalese majority in the south.
The government is to formally pull out of a 2002 ceasefire deal on 16 January.
The pace of fighting in Sri Lanka has picked up since the government gave notice it was abandoning the ceasefire with the Tamil Tigers.
Heavy price
As on earlier days, the battles continued on Friday on the frontlines that fringe rebel-held territory in the north.
A spokesman for the military said 59 Tiger fighters had been killed as well as one soldier.
But the head of the rebels' Peace Secretariat, S Puleedevan, accused Sri Lanka's Ministry of Defence of putting out false propaganda, saying if their figures were to be believed there would not be a single Tamil left on the island.
He said soldiers were trying to push across the frontlines but were being repulsed with casualties.
With the ceasefire formally coming to an end next week there is likely to be a further escalation in the conflict.
The commander of the Army, Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka, has said his aim is to eliminate the Tigers before he leaves office at the end of the year.
But the rebels say they are ready for all-out war, with Mr Puleedevan warning if soldiers take one step into Tiger-controlled territory they would pay a heavy price.
India-China War Games
India and China launch war games
India and China have begun a landmark joint military exercise, the first of its kind between the two largest armies in the world.
The exercise is taking place between 20 and 28 December in China's south-western province of Yunnan.
It involves a company - just over 100 officers and men - from each side.
India and China fought a brief but bloody border war in 1962 and observers say the largely symbolic exercise is to boost historically frosty relations.
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says after years of mistrust both sides are beginning to benefit from increased trade and their governments are coming under increasing pressure from business leaders to improve ties.
"The joint training is aimed at enhancing understanding and mutual trust between Chinese and Indian armies and strengthening their exchanges in the anti-terror areas," a statement issued by the foreign office of the Chinese Ministry of National Defence said.
It is also aimed at deterring the 'three evil forces' - separatists, extremists and terrorists - and promoting the strategic partnership for peace and prosperity between China and India."
Indian troops taking part have been picked from forces fighting insurgencies in restive north-eastern India and Indian-administered Kashmir, reports said.
Indian forces are carrying their personal weapons, light machine guns and mortars. The armoury - tanks, helicopter gunships and unmanned aerial vehicles - are being provided by the Chinese army.
Analysts say the exercise will bolster ties between the two countries.
"It will definitely help strengthen the mutual trust between the two countries, and the militaries in particular, given that they have an episode of unpleasant history," Sun Shihai, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences told the BBC.
Swaran Singh, associate professor at the School of International Studies at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, said: "This reflects the growing mutual trust and understanding between the two sides, including between their military establishments."
'Intrusions'
Ties between the two countries remained tense after the brief war in 1962.
During an Indian high altitude military exercise called Operation Chequerboard in 1987, the two armies nearly went to war again.
In between, both sides patrolled the desolate frontier aggressively and skirmishes were not infrequent.
The situation eased after the two countries signed a treaty for peace and tranquillity in 1993, agreeing to reduce troop levels on the borders.
India and China signed an agreement on defence cooperation in May 2006 during the visit of former Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee to China.
Since then the two countries have been sending officers to each other's military institutions for training, and military delegations have been visiting each other on a regular basis.
Last year, China agreed to reopen the strategic Nathu La pass to border trade, thereby accepting Sikkim as a part of India.
But in the last year China appeared to be uncomfortable with India's growing strategic ties with the US, cemented through a series of joint exercises, including the huge five-nation naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, this year.
In recent months, Indian forces reported more and more Chinese "intrusions" across the disputed border even as Beijing stepped up its rhetoric over the disputed frontier, reiterating its claims to the north-east Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.
Analysts say the visit of India's governing Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi to China last month has helped put bilateral relations back on the right track.
For its part, China, a long-term ally of Pakistan, appears no longer to object to India's civilian nuclear deal with the US.
But other sources of suspicion remain, among them China's influence in India's neighbour Burma and India's hosting of the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.
Chinese 'border gesture' to India
By Subir Bhaumik
BBC News, Calcutta 7 Dec 2007
China appears to have reversed its long-held policy of refusing to give visas to Indians from the disputed Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.
It has now allowed a professor from the state - in the north-east of the country - to visit China.
Beijing has over much of the last four decades been claiming Arunachal Pradesh as its own territory.
During the 1962 war with India, Chinese troops overran large parts of the state, before withdrawing to Tibet.
It has emerged that this week the Chinese embassy in Delhi granted a visa to Marpe Sora, a professor in computer science at the Rajiv Gandhi university in Arunachal's capital, Itanagar.
Diplomats and analysts feel this gesture may be a prelude to China ultimately accepting Arunachal Pradesh as part of India.
China opposed the Indian takeover of the state of Sikkim in 1975, and did not recognise it to be Indian for more than 20 years.
Chinese maps now show Sikkim as a part of India, but much of Arunachal Pradesh is still shown to be part of China.
Mr Marpe Sora has already left for China with some other Indian professors for a programme conducted by the India-China Alliance Centre, officials said.
They said Mr Sora belongs to one of the local tribes of Arunachal Pradesh.
Officials say he will visit the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing and several other institutes as part of his trip.
Earlier this year, China refused a visa to Ganesh Koyu, an Arunachal Pradesh local and an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
Mr Koyu was part of a delegation of 100 IAS officers due to visit China.
China said that since they considered Arunachal Pradesh to be a part of China, Mr Koyu would not need a visa to visit his "own country".
Upset with Beijing's decision, the Indian government cancelled the trip of the entire IAS delegation.
In 1983, China refused to grant a visa to Arunachal Pradesh resident T Rajkumar, who was then speaker of the state's legislative assembly.
Earlier this month China agreed to withdraw its objections to the India-US nuclear deal after months of uncertainty triggered by its suspicions of the agreement.
The Chinese army has also decided to hold its first joint military exercise with the Indian army at Chengdu later this month, with a special focus on anti-terrorist drills.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, 8 January 2008, 12:05 GMT
A grim future foretold for Sri Lanka
By Ethirajan Anbarasan
BBC News
Violence is a daily occurrence in Sri Lanka
It had been widely predicted that "2008 would be the year of war for Sri Lanka". The current escalation of violence since 1 January supports those fears.
Scores of Tamil rebels and soldiers have been reported killed in heavy fighting in four fronts of northern Sri Lanka in recent days.
The rebels are offering fierce resistance to the army and there are intermittent battles at sea as well.
A government minister was killed on Tuesday near the capital, Colombo. The government are sure it was the work of the Tigers.
On Sunday the Tigers' intelligence chief, Col Charles, was killed in the north, only two months after SP Thamilselvan, the Tiger's political wing leader, was killed in an air raid in the north.
Denials
The New Year gloom intensified when the government announced that it was officially withdrawing from the Norwegian-brokered 2002 ceasefire agreement.
With some 5,000 people killed in the last two years, the ceasefire was nothing more than a piece of paper. Now there are fears that a full-fledged conflict is on the cards.
"The Sri Lankan government will intensify and expedite its war preparations," says Sri Lankan analyst DBS Jeyaraj.
Sri Lanka is a country where the official statements of the military and the rebels often appear to have little bearing on reality.
Thousands of people have been displaced due to the fighting
"Whenever our forces are attacked, we respond. We are not conducting any major military offensive," military spokesman, Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara, told the BBC.
The Sri Lankan government also insists that it has not closed the doors for talks and that it wants to militarily weaken the rebels before entering into any peace negotiations.
One worrying development for human rights is that the Nordic ceasefire monitors, whose mission was set up as part of the 2002 agreement, will no longer have a role to play.
Soon, there will be no independent officials to investigate the violence, making it even harder to verify the claims and counter-claims of the two sides.
Waning interest
The government's decision to abrogate the ceasefire agreement has disappointed major international powers, including neighbouring India.
"We strongly believe that there is no military solution to the issue," an Indian government spokesman said after the Sri Lankan government's announcement on terminating the ceasefire.
International interest in the ethnic conflict now seems to be waning.
Western nations, including the US, had strongly backed the Norwegian-backed peace process.
Heavy fighting is going on in the north
Now their options appear to be limited. Their calls for restraint seem to be having no effect.
From previous experience, the Tamil Tiger rebels can be expected to put up a tough fight, but many doubt their ability to hold on to territory in any protracted confrontations.
The numerically superior government forces might try to inch their way into rebel territory as they did in eastern Sri Lanka last year.
The government claims that their aerial bombardments are also inflicting serious damage to rebel positions elsewhere.
Even abroad the Tamil Tigers have come under pressure.
Their actions in Europe and in the US have come under intense scrutiny and many of their senior representatives have been held in custody under various charges.
Back home the political process is in limbo.
The government had announced the formation of an all-party group in 2006 to discuss a political solution to the war.
The final draft of the proposals is still under discussion and the delay is worrying the Tamil community.
Civilians ignored
As is so often the case in Sri Lanka, it's the civilians that seem to be worst hit.
There are reports of many civilian casualties in government air raids in the north. And civilians are often caught up in Tamil Tiger bomb attacks.
Thousands have been displaced from their homes and there is no sign that many of them will be able to return home.
There are already more than 5,000 civilians displaced in the recent fighting in the north.
Civilians are the hardest hit
Some of them are afraid that they may not be allowed to go back to their homes even if the fighting ends.
They point out that while major clashes ceased in the east some months ago, more than 20,000 civilians are still scattered in various camps for displaced people.
In addition, thousands of civilians, especially Tamils, are living under fear in Colombo and in other areas.
Hundreds of Tamils are routinely rounded up in security sweeps and many are afraid they are being unfairly punished in response to the violence in the north.
Scared
"There will be crackdown, mass arrests, expulsions etc of Tamil civilians in Colombo and other places in the south," says analyst DBS Jeyaraj.
"If the rebels carry out an operation in the south it will be used to justify repression in the name of security."
Even Tamil politicians are scared of staying in Colombo.
On this New Year's Day a Tamil lawmaker from the main opposition, T Maheswaran, was gunned down in a Hindu temple in broad daylight in front of many civilians.
Another Tamil lawmaker, Mano Ganesan, a human rights campaigner, has left the country for safety reasons.
All in all, the prospects for peace in Sri Lanka are looking more bleak than ever.
Thursday, 10 January 2008, 11:57 GMT
Tamil Tigers in ceasefire appeal
The Tigers have suffered serious setbacks in recent months
Tamil Tiger rebels in Sri Lanka say they are prepared to fully implement the terms of a 2002 ceasefire, although the government is pulling out of it.
The government's commitment to the ceasefire formally ends on 16 January. In practice, it has fallen apart in the last two years.
Both sides have been accused of repeatedly breaching it and also committing human rights abuses.
The Tamil Tigers have suffered major setbacks in the past 12 months.
'Shocked'
On 2 January the government gave two weeks notice of its intention to end the ceasefire.
A government minister was killed near Colombo this week
Now the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) have issued a formal response.
"We are shocked and disappointed," a statement from the new head of the Tigers' political wing, B Nadesan said.
"The GoSL [government of Sri Lanka], without any justifications, has now unilaterally withdrawn from the CFA [ceasefire agreement].
"The LTTE wishes to state that even at this juncture, it is ready to implement every clause of the CFA agreement and respect it 100%," Mr Nadesan said.
The 2002 ceasefire was brokered by Norway. Mr Nadesan also requested "that Norway should continue with its facilitation role with the support of the international community".
'We will face it'
It is not clear why it has taken the Tigers more than a week to respond to the government's ceasefire withdrawal.
A leading rebel, S Puleedevan, told Reuters news agency that "if full-scale war is thrust upon us, we will face it".
The Tigers - listed as a terrorist organisation in the United States and the European Union - also called on the international community to reconsider the bans on them.
In the past two years some 5,000 people have been killed, despite both sides having professed their commitment to the ceasefire.
The Tamil Tigers have staged some high-profile attacks, including using air power last year for the first time.
This week a government minister was killed in a bomb attack near Colombo.
But the government has driven the Tigers from their strongholds in the east of the island and has been claiming sustained successes in the north.
Leading rebels have been killed, including SP Thamilselvan who headed their political wing for years.
At least 70,000 people have been killed in the conflict since it began in 1983.
The government has ruled out any more negotiations unless the Tigers lay down their arms first. It has also vowed to crush the rebels militarily.
The pace of fighting has stepped up in recent days on the frontlines that surround rebel-held territory in the north of the island where they run a civil administration.
A grim future foretold for Sri Lanka
By Ethirajan Anbarasan
BBC News
Violence is a daily occurrence in Sri Lanka
It had been widely predicted that "2008 would be the year of war for Sri Lanka". The current escalation of violence since 1 January supports those fears.
Scores of Tamil rebels and soldiers have been reported killed in heavy fighting in four fronts of northern Sri Lanka in recent days.
The rebels are offering fierce resistance to the army and there are intermittent battles at sea as well.
A government minister was killed on Tuesday near the capital, Colombo. The government are sure it was the work of the Tigers.
On Sunday the Tigers' intelligence chief, Col Charles, was killed in the north, only two months after SP Thamilselvan, the Tiger's political wing leader, was killed in an air raid in the north.
Denials
The New Year gloom intensified when the government announced that it was officially withdrawing from the Norwegian-brokered 2002 ceasefire agreement.
With some 5,000 people killed in the last two years, the ceasefire was nothing more than a piece of paper. Now there are fears that a full-fledged conflict is on the cards.
"The Sri Lankan government will intensify and expedite its war preparations," says Sri Lankan analyst DBS Jeyaraj.
Sri Lanka is a country where the official statements of the military and the rebels often appear to have little bearing on reality.
Thousands of people have been displaced due to the fighting
"Whenever our forces are attacked, we respond. We are not conducting any major military offensive," military spokesman, Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara, told the BBC.
The Sri Lankan government also insists that it has not closed the doors for talks and that it wants to militarily weaken the rebels before entering into any peace negotiations.
One worrying development for human rights is that the Nordic ceasefire monitors, whose mission was set up as part of the 2002 agreement, will no longer have a role to play.
Soon, there will be no independent officials to investigate the violence, making it even harder to verify the claims and counter-claims of the two sides.
Waning interest
The government's decision to abrogate the ceasefire agreement has disappointed major international powers, including neighbouring India.
"We strongly believe that there is no military solution to the issue," an Indian government spokesman said after the Sri Lankan government's announcement on terminating the ceasefire.
International interest in the ethnic conflict now seems to be waning.
Western nations, including the US, had strongly backed the Norwegian-backed peace process.
Heavy fighting is going on in the north
Now their options appear to be limited. Their calls for restraint seem to be having no effect.
From previous experience, the Tamil Tiger rebels can be expected to put up a tough fight, but many doubt their ability to hold on to territory in any protracted confrontations.
The numerically superior government forces might try to inch their way into rebel territory as they did in eastern Sri Lanka last year.
The government claims that their aerial bombardments are also inflicting serious damage to rebel positions elsewhere.
Even abroad the Tamil Tigers have come under pressure.
Their actions in Europe and in the US have come under intense scrutiny and many of their senior representatives have been held in custody under various charges.
Back home the political process is in limbo.
The government had announced the formation of an all-party group in 2006 to discuss a political solution to the war.
The final draft of the proposals is still under discussion and the delay is worrying the Tamil community.
Civilians ignored
As is so often the case in Sri Lanka, it's the civilians that seem to be worst hit.
There are reports of many civilian casualties in government air raids in the north. And civilians are often caught up in Tamil Tiger bomb attacks.
Thousands have been displaced from their homes and there is no sign that many of them will be able to return home.
There are already more than 5,000 civilians displaced in the recent fighting in the north.
Civilians are the hardest hit
Some of them are afraid that they may not be allowed to go back to their homes even if the fighting ends.
They point out that while major clashes ceased in the east some months ago, more than 20,000 civilians are still scattered in various camps for displaced people.
In addition, thousands of civilians, especially Tamils, are living under fear in Colombo and in other areas.
Hundreds of Tamils are routinely rounded up in security sweeps and many are afraid they are being unfairly punished in response to the violence in the north.
Scared
"There will be crackdown, mass arrests, expulsions etc of Tamil civilians in Colombo and other places in the south," says analyst DBS Jeyaraj.
"If the rebels carry out an operation in the south it will be used to justify repression in the name of security."
Even Tamil politicians are scared of staying in Colombo.
On this New Year's Day a Tamil lawmaker from the main opposition, T Maheswaran, was gunned down in a Hindu temple in broad daylight in front of many civilians.
Another Tamil lawmaker, Mano Ganesan, a human rights campaigner, has left the country for safety reasons.
All in all, the prospects for peace in Sri Lanka are looking more bleak than ever.
Thursday, 10 January 2008, 11:57 GMT
Tamil Tigers in ceasefire appeal
The Tigers have suffered serious setbacks in recent months
Tamil Tiger rebels in Sri Lanka say they are prepared to fully implement the terms of a 2002 ceasefire, although the government is pulling out of it.
The government's commitment to the ceasefire formally ends on 16 January. In practice, it has fallen apart in the last two years.
Both sides have been accused of repeatedly breaching it and also committing human rights abuses.
The Tamil Tigers have suffered major setbacks in the past 12 months.
'Shocked'
On 2 January the government gave two weeks notice of its intention to end the ceasefire.
A government minister was killed near Colombo this week
Now the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) have issued a formal response.
"We are shocked and disappointed," a statement from the new head of the Tigers' political wing, B Nadesan said.
"The GoSL [government of Sri Lanka], without any justifications, has now unilaterally withdrawn from the CFA [ceasefire agreement].
"The LTTE wishes to state that even at this juncture, it is ready to implement every clause of the CFA agreement and respect it 100%," Mr Nadesan said.
The 2002 ceasefire was brokered by Norway. Mr Nadesan also requested "that Norway should continue with its facilitation role with the support of the international community".
'We will face it'
It is not clear why it has taken the Tigers more than a week to respond to the government's ceasefire withdrawal.
A leading rebel, S Puleedevan, told Reuters news agency that "if full-scale war is thrust upon us, we will face it".
The Tigers - listed as a terrorist organisation in the United States and the European Union - also called on the international community to reconsider the bans on them.
In the past two years some 5,000 people have been killed, despite both sides having professed their commitment to the ceasefire.
The Tamil Tigers have staged some high-profile attacks, including using air power last year for the first time.
This week a government minister was killed in a bomb attack near Colombo.
But the government has driven the Tigers from their strongholds in the east of the island and has been claiming sustained successes in the north.
Leading rebels have been killed, including SP Thamilselvan who headed their political wing for years.
At least 70,000 people have been killed in the conflict since it began in 1983.
The government has ruled out any more negotiations unless the Tigers lay down their arms first. It has also vowed to crush the rebels militarily.
The pace of fighting has stepped up in recent days on the frontlines that surround rebel-held territory in the north of the island where they run a civil administration.
Jan 9, 2008 - Radicals in SEA will not prevail
Jan 9, 2008
Muslim radicals in S-E Asia will not prevail
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew believes that Islamic terrorists in South-east Asia cannot win the war against their governments.
He is optimistic that 'the early burst of enthusiasm that they can change the world' may fade away.
Speaking in response to a question on whether South-east Asian governments are losing the fight against terrorism, Mr Lee said on Monday: 'I'm not sure that's correct. I don't think they are losing so much as they are not beating it down as well as they can. The problem is they are not winning the hearts and minds of the people.'
Focusing specifically on Singapore, he said: 'What has troubled us is that some of our own educated Muslims are being self-radicalised through the Internet, which is a very worrying development...''
But Mr Lee is sanguine that, eventually, the radicals will not win.
'I think it's a phase. Can it go on? Yes. For how long? I cannot say. Five years, 10 years. Will they win? No, cannot win. They haven't got the capabilities to take over a country or a government.
'So after a while, it becomes an exercise in futility.
'So this early burst of enthusiasm that they can change the world, have a caliphate, or restore a caliphate that's never existed, that may fade away.
'I can't predict that but I do not predict they're winning. And that's the reason why I believe in the end, the Muslims won't go with them. They can't go with them.'
Muslim radicals in S-E Asia will not prevail
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew believes that Islamic terrorists in South-east Asia cannot win the war against their governments.
He is optimistic that 'the early burst of enthusiasm that they can change the world' may fade away.
Speaking in response to a question on whether South-east Asian governments are losing the fight against terrorism, Mr Lee said on Monday: 'I'm not sure that's correct. I don't think they are losing so much as they are not beating it down as well as they can. The problem is they are not winning the hearts and minds of the people.'
Focusing specifically on Singapore, he said: 'What has troubled us is that some of our own educated Muslims are being self-radicalised through the Internet, which is a very worrying development...''
But Mr Lee is sanguine that, eventually, the radicals will not win.
'I think it's a phase. Can it go on? Yes. For how long? I cannot say. Five years, 10 years. Will they win? No, cannot win. They haven't got the capabilities to take over a country or a government.
'So after a while, it becomes an exercise in futility.
'So this early burst of enthusiasm that they can change the world, have a caliphate, or restore a caliphate that's never existed, that may fade away.
'I can't predict that but I do not predict they're winning. And that's the reason why I believe in the end, the Muslims won't go with them. They can't go with them.'
Jan 8, 2008 Get set for means test
Jan 8, 2008
Get set for means test
THE likely shape of means testing in public hospitals, as sketched by the Health Minister yesterday, will be reassuring to most. Patients will be free to choose the subsidised ward class, with no ban placed on the well-off for, say, stays in C class which is subsidised at 80 per cent. A prohibition could divert resources more efficiently to the needy, but it cannot be defended on grounds of equity and fairness. Income will almost certainly be the sole criterion to test means, not patients' property category and liquid assets such as deposit savings and portfolio investments. This is being practical. A convoluted system of including all asset classes will be hard to administer, besides incurring the risk of encouraging fraudulent behaviour.
But Minister Khaw Boon Wan made no mention of the five-day rule, floated last year as a probable cutoff after which means testing will be triggered. This is not so good news, but sensible. Discharge of patients should be made on clinical considerations, not financial cost to the patient or cost to the hospital in that demand for subsidised beds frequently exceeds supply. In any case, the Health Ministry will continually build more subsidised facilities and of a better quality than is available now. The most pleasing aspect of the likely implementation model is the possibility that retirees, besides the long-term unemployed, will not be subject to any other measure of the means test. They will enjoy full subsidy of whichever ward class they choose. This is just, a necessary concession in an ageing society. The retired elderly are the most vulnerable in health, and their dread of medical bills will grow with advancing years. As for the complaint that the wealthy can access subsidies like the needy and the poor, the fact is that the rich elderly sick are more likely to choose treatment in private hospitals.
Two exogenous features arise from Mr Khaw's preview. First, the 'poorest' of middle-income earners who are barely able to make ends meet - the squeezed group with families which earns moderate income, pays taxes and receives no welfare benefits - will expect fair treatment when the quantum of subsidies relative to income is decided. Mr Khaw's assurance that the present profile of B2 and C patients fits the target beneficiaries is not to be taken as a static situation. Second, Singaporeans should consider private hospitalisation insurance to supplement MediShield and employer-provided cover. This is the appropriate response to the coming of the means-test age, the better to prepare for the grey years. Those with spare income would even want to take out disability or critical illness plans to protect themselves against prolonged loss of employment income.
Jan 8, 2008
Sharing limited health-care resources fairly
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan explained the need for means testing in a speech at Changi General Hospital yesterday
THE health-care challenge, for Singapore and the rest of the world, is a classic case of demand perpetually exceeding supply. Indeed, health- care demand is effectively bottomless. This is because all patients will prefer the best senior consultant to look after them, even if their condition is routine and can be competently handled by others.
Given a choice, patients here in Changi General Hospital (CGH) will want Professor Low Cheng Ooi or Professor Fock Kwong Min to look after them. Those with sports injuries will want to be treated by Dr Ben Tan, never mind if it is only a minor injury.
But there is a limit to how many patients each senior doctor can serve. Unfortunately we have not yet figured out a way to clone these doctors!
This phenomenon is not unique to health care. For instance, the demand for subsidised public housing, whether for purchase or rental, also exceeds supply and we need to distribute it in a fair manner.
HDB way
THE Housing and Development Board provides a range of housing options from one- room rental flats to five-room home ownership flats. While all are subsidised, there are different degrees of subsidy.
For example, three-room flats are smaller than five- room flats but are more heavily subsidised proportionally, as they aim to benefit the lower-income group. Lower-income flat buyers also receive additional housing subsidy through the Additional CPF Housing Grant.
To make sure the smaller flats are allocated to those most in need, applicants are assessed carefully on their financial situation. Specifically, those buying subsidised three- room flats need to satisfy a more stringent income ceiling of $3,000 per month, compared to a higher income ceiling of $8,000 for subsidised five-room flats.
This way, we ensure lower-income Singaporeans do not get crowded out by those who can afford larger HDB flats or private properties. Occasionally, some three-room flat owners also buy Mercedes -Benzes, and then we get complaints from their neighbours that we should not have allowed such luxury-car owners access to three-room flats.
I should clarify that there is no income ceiling for the purchase of resale HDB flats since there is no government subsidy involved, but this may not be clear to those who complain of three-room flat owners driving expensive cars.
The fact that there are such complaints shows that Singaporeans accept the HDB method of sharing limited public housing resources and consider it to be fair. They are therefore upset when they see some people seemingly 'getting around the system'.
MOH way
FOR subsidised hospital services, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has taken a different approach. Like HDB, public hospitals also provide a range of options, from Class C to Class A. While clinical care in all wards is of a high standard, there are distinct differences between the classes.
First, the creature comforts of the ward accommodation are different. Class C has no air-conditioning and offers a very basic level of privacy.
Second, competent doctors are assigned to treat the Class C patients through a roster system, while Class A patients can choose their doctors.
Third, while all emergency patients are immediately attended to regardless of ward class, non-emergency referrals of subsidised patients to specialists generally face a longer waiting time than those for private patients.
But, unlike HDB, patients are free to choose the class of ward, regardless of their financial status. They are charged according to their choice. A patient earning say $10,000 per month can choose Class C and be warded next to another earning $1,000 per month, but both will be subsidised by 80 per cent.
The MOH approach is not without merit. Patients welcome the freedom to choose. Hospital costs are high and patients who require prolonged hospitalisation, especially in ICUs (intensive care units), or the chronic sick who need frequent hospitalisation, do worry about their ability to pay.
Middle-income Singaporeans, for example, are concerned whether any kind of financial assessment may block their access to Class C wards and cause them severe financial hardship should they develop a major complication. Their concerns are valid, and I am well aware of them.
Not sustainable
THE MOH way is, however, not without problems.
First, there is a question of fairness. Last year, health subsidies for Singaporeans exceeded $1.5 billion. While this is not a small sum and we will continue to increase the quantum, it is not unlimited.
A high-income patient occupying a Class C bed does prevent another low-income patient from using that service. When a Class C or B2 ward is full, the high-income patient can easily afford an alternative ward, but a low-income patient faced with such a situation does not have such a choice. An unduly overcrowded Class C or B2 ward thus comes at the expense of the low-income patients.
Second, there is rising expectation of better services from all patients, rich or poor. The MOH approach is based on there being distinct differences in ward accommodation between the subsidised and private wards. The differences used to be stark. For example, Class C ward was 40-bedded, with little privacy.
But as we rebuild public hospitals, we are significantly narrowing the differences between these wards. Class C wards in CGH are 10-bedded and much more comfortable than those in the old Toa Payoh Hospital.
And we would like to continue to raise the standard of physical facilities in the subsidised wards. For example, Class C and B2 patients share communal toilets outside the ward. This is a common complaint from the patients and their relatives.
For the new Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), we have decided to move the toilets into the wards. I am sure this will be greatly welcomed by the patients. But in so doing, Class B2 and Class C wards in KTPH will be as comfortable as Class B1, except for the absence of air-conditioning. Indeed, many elderly patients do not regard air-conditioning as a plus.
With such marginal difference in ward facilities, even though fees for Class B1 are more than double those for Class B2 and four times those in Class C, we expect many patients who would normally choose Class B1 to now choose Class B2 or C. This will further reduce the lower- income patients' access to B2 and C facilities.
We have already observed this development in the polyclinics. Over the years, we have significantly improved the polyclinics. Modern polyclinics are much better equipped and organised than many neighbourhood GPs.
We have also increased the number of polyclinic doctors and nurses to cut down waiting times by patients. But these improvements in service standards do not have lasting effect. As soon as we reduce waiting times, even more patients who used to visit GPs are drawn into polyclinics, for better care at much reduced fees.
By improving facilities and service standards primarily for the benefit of lower-income patients, we have inadvertently driven up patient numbers all over again, and we are then back to the same problem of over-crowding and long waiting times.
Economists' way
ECONOMISTS are familiar with this phenomenon of demand exceeding supply, and have studied options on how to solve the allocation problem. There are two ways to distribute limited supply: either raise the price until supply equals demand, or let the queue mechanism sort out the distribution. Those who can afford private treatment but cannot afford to wait will leave the queue and go elsewhere.
We know some subsidised patients are unhappy with long waiting times. Our priority is to make sure the waiting times for the various conditions do not compromise patient care from a clinical point of view. Patients who need to be seen fairly quickly will be seen early. But beyond that, subsidised patients will need to endure some waiting.
MOH would very much like to improve care for subsidised patients, whether in polyclinics or in hospitals. But if significant improvement results in us drawing in patients who can well afford private treatment, our efforts will be nullified.
A third way
WE NEED a third way to share the limited health-care resources among competing demands. The question is how to do so fairly.
The extreme cases are easily addressed. All emergency cases should be treated immediately by the most competent doctors available. A patient's ability to pay should not be a barrier to life-saving services.
On the other extreme, demand for frills and cosmetic services can be left to the market, leaving patients to choose the providers based on their preference and what they are prepared to pay. Many Singaporeans, for example, seem happy to fork out thousands of dollars for non-medically necessary Lasik services provided by private operators.
Between these extremes lie a wide range of health-care services to address differing needs and ability to pay. For example, the use of generic medicine helps to keep health-care costs low but without compromising the outcome. Hence our policy is to only prescribe generic drugs for subsidised patients where generics are available. This is the right thing to do, but in the private wards we do allow brand-name drugs for patients who are prepared to pay for them.
With higher expectations, subsidised patients are increasingly demanding a higher level of care, including access to non-standard drugs based on their perceptions of what they need. With economic growth and rising standards of living, we can afford better treatments. We would like to extend such benefits to subsidised patients too. But we must do so in a way which does not unwittingly draw in patients who would have chosen the private wards.
The most logical way to address this contradiction is to apply the principle that higher-income patients should co- pay more for the same treatment than lower-income patients, if they choose to be treated in the subsidised wards. The former should get less subsidy than the latter. That is a fair and practical way to share limited health- care resources.
The lower-income patients will not be affected by this approach, but I know middle-income patients are particularly worried. While the principle is easy to explain, the implementation details worry a lot of people. We have studied this issue for some time and will continue to discuss the details with unionists, fellow MPs and the public. I am confident I can find a way of doing this which is fair to all and which does not impose unnecessary burdens on patients.
I think a fair way of doing this must fulfil five criteria:
First, patients must retain the freedom to choose. Rich or poor, they must be able to choose, say, a Class B2 ward if they wish. Anybody can choose to be admitted to a subsidised ward.
Second, all patients in Class C and B2 will be subsidised, but to different degrees. Higher-income patients will be subsidised less than lower-income patients, but their bills will remain affordable. For example, a better-off patient in Class B2 will still get higher subsidy than if he opts for Class B1, and should find his bill affordable.
Third, given the acute nature of hospitalisation, we need a simple way to make an assessment. The way it is done in nursing homes, whereby the entire family's income is ascertained, cannot be applied. We need a different approach. For example, we may base it on the patient's individual eligibility. Furthermore, any assessment of the patient's financial status should preferably be automated, based on objective evidence, such as wages as declared to Iras (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) or CPF Board.
Fourth, we will be sensitive to the circumstances of retirees and others who are not working. Without any income, they are particularly fearful that any chronic disease may wipe out their past savings. If we use their housing type to assess their eligibility, we may deliberately set the threshold at a sufficiently high level.
Fifth, no patient should be denied treatment because he cannot afford it. We will be flexible in implementation so that, at the margins, we will always give patients the benefit of the doubt. All needy citizens will remain protected by Medifund, the ultimate safety net for patients.
The implementation details will need to be fleshed out, but I feel confident we can work out a way to allocate health-care subsidies fairly to all segments of the population. Currently the profile of patients in Class C and Class B2 largely reflects our intended target beneficiaries of these wards. What this means is that a majority of Singaporeans should continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected.
Nevertheless, we need to put the system in place now, so that as we pump in more resources to upgrade the subsidised wards, we do not unwittingly cannibalise the private wards and services at the expense of the low-income patients. Our objective is to safeguard our current high standard of public hospitals and to ensure that all patients who need the care continue to receive it in a timely manner.
I hope to get your support for this proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REST ASSURED
No patient should be denied treatment because he cannot afford it. We will be flexible in implementation so that, at the margins, we will always give patients the benefit of the doubt. All needy citizens will remain protected by Medifund, the ultimate safety net for patients.
Get set for means test
THE likely shape of means testing in public hospitals, as sketched by the Health Minister yesterday, will be reassuring to most. Patients will be free to choose the subsidised ward class, with no ban placed on the well-off for, say, stays in C class which is subsidised at 80 per cent. A prohibition could divert resources more efficiently to the needy, but it cannot be defended on grounds of equity and fairness. Income will almost certainly be the sole criterion to test means, not patients' property category and liquid assets such as deposit savings and portfolio investments. This is being practical. A convoluted system of including all asset classes will be hard to administer, besides incurring the risk of encouraging fraudulent behaviour.
But Minister Khaw Boon Wan made no mention of the five-day rule, floated last year as a probable cutoff after which means testing will be triggered. This is not so good news, but sensible. Discharge of patients should be made on clinical considerations, not financial cost to the patient or cost to the hospital in that demand for subsidised beds frequently exceeds supply. In any case, the Health Ministry will continually build more subsidised facilities and of a better quality than is available now. The most pleasing aspect of the likely implementation model is the possibility that retirees, besides the long-term unemployed, will not be subject to any other measure of the means test. They will enjoy full subsidy of whichever ward class they choose. This is just, a necessary concession in an ageing society. The retired elderly are the most vulnerable in health, and their dread of medical bills will grow with advancing years. As for the complaint that the wealthy can access subsidies like the needy and the poor, the fact is that the rich elderly sick are more likely to choose treatment in private hospitals.
Two exogenous features arise from Mr Khaw's preview. First, the 'poorest' of middle-income earners who are barely able to make ends meet - the squeezed group with families which earns moderate income, pays taxes and receives no welfare benefits - will expect fair treatment when the quantum of subsidies relative to income is decided. Mr Khaw's assurance that the present profile of B2 and C patients fits the target beneficiaries is not to be taken as a static situation. Second, Singaporeans should consider private hospitalisation insurance to supplement MediShield and employer-provided cover. This is the appropriate response to the coming of the means-test age, the better to prepare for the grey years. Those with spare income would even want to take out disability or critical illness plans to protect themselves against prolonged loss of employment income.
Jan 8, 2008
Sharing limited health-care resources fairly
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan explained the need for means testing in a speech at Changi General Hospital yesterday
THE health-care challenge, for Singapore and the rest of the world, is a classic case of demand perpetually exceeding supply. Indeed, health- care demand is effectively bottomless. This is because all patients will prefer the best senior consultant to look after them, even if their condition is routine and can be competently handled by others.
Given a choice, patients here in Changi General Hospital (CGH) will want Professor Low Cheng Ooi or Professor Fock Kwong Min to look after them. Those with sports injuries will want to be treated by Dr Ben Tan, never mind if it is only a minor injury.
But there is a limit to how many patients each senior doctor can serve. Unfortunately we have not yet figured out a way to clone these doctors!
This phenomenon is not unique to health care. For instance, the demand for subsidised public housing, whether for purchase or rental, also exceeds supply and we need to distribute it in a fair manner.
HDB way
THE Housing and Development Board provides a range of housing options from one- room rental flats to five-room home ownership flats. While all are subsidised, there are different degrees of subsidy.
For example, three-room flats are smaller than five- room flats but are more heavily subsidised proportionally, as they aim to benefit the lower-income group. Lower-income flat buyers also receive additional housing subsidy through the Additional CPF Housing Grant.
To make sure the smaller flats are allocated to those most in need, applicants are assessed carefully on their financial situation. Specifically, those buying subsidised three- room flats need to satisfy a more stringent income ceiling of $3,000 per month, compared to a higher income ceiling of $8,000 for subsidised five-room flats.
This way, we ensure lower-income Singaporeans do not get crowded out by those who can afford larger HDB flats or private properties. Occasionally, some three-room flat owners also buy Mercedes -Benzes, and then we get complaints from their neighbours that we should not have allowed such luxury-car owners access to three-room flats.
I should clarify that there is no income ceiling for the purchase of resale HDB flats since there is no government subsidy involved, but this may not be clear to those who complain of three-room flat owners driving expensive cars.
The fact that there are such complaints shows that Singaporeans accept the HDB method of sharing limited public housing resources and consider it to be fair. They are therefore upset when they see some people seemingly 'getting around the system'.
MOH way
FOR subsidised hospital services, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has taken a different approach. Like HDB, public hospitals also provide a range of options, from Class C to Class A. While clinical care in all wards is of a high standard, there are distinct differences between the classes.
First, the creature comforts of the ward accommodation are different. Class C has no air-conditioning and offers a very basic level of privacy.
Second, competent doctors are assigned to treat the Class C patients through a roster system, while Class A patients can choose their doctors.
Third, while all emergency patients are immediately attended to regardless of ward class, non-emergency referrals of subsidised patients to specialists generally face a longer waiting time than those for private patients.
But, unlike HDB, patients are free to choose the class of ward, regardless of their financial status. They are charged according to their choice. A patient earning say $10,000 per month can choose Class C and be warded next to another earning $1,000 per month, but both will be subsidised by 80 per cent.
The MOH approach is not without merit. Patients welcome the freedom to choose. Hospital costs are high and patients who require prolonged hospitalisation, especially in ICUs (intensive care units), or the chronic sick who need frequent hospitalisation, do worry about their ability to pay.
Middle-income Singaporeans, for example, are concerned whether any kind of financial assessment may block their access to Class C wards and cause them severe financial hardship should they develop a major complication. Their concerns are valid, and I am well aware of them.
Not sustainable
THE MOH way is, however, not without problems.
First, there is a question of fairness. Last year, health subsidies for Singaporeans exceeded $1.5 billion. While this is not a small sum and we will continue to increase the quantum, it is not unlimited.
A high-income patient occupying a Class C bed does prevent another low-income patient from using that service. When a Class C or B2 ward is full, the high-income patient can easily afford an alternative ward, but a low-income patient faced with such a situation does not have such a choice. An unduly overcrowded Class C or B2 ward thus comes at the expense of the low-income patients.
Second, there is rising expectation of better services from all patients, rich or poor. The MOH approach is based on there being distinct differences in ward accommodation between the subsidised and private wards. The differences used to be stark. For example, Class C ward was 40-bedded, with little privacy.
But as we rebuild public hospitals, we are significantly narrowing the differences between these wards. Class C wards in CGH are 10-bedded and much more comfortable than those in the old Toa Payoh Hospital.
And we would like to continue to raise the standard of physical facilities in the subsidised wards. For example, Class C and B2 patients share communal toilets outside the ward. This is a common complaint from the patients and their relatives.
For the new Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), we have decided to move the toilets into the wards. I am sure this will be greatly welcomed by the patients. But in so doing, Class B2 and Class C wards in KTPH will be as comfortable as Class B1, except for the absence of air-conditioning. Indeed, many elderly patients do not regard air-conditioning as a plus.
With such marginal difference in ward facilities, even though fees for Class B1 are more than double those for Class B2 and four times those in Class C, we expect many patients who would normally choose Class B1 to now choose Class B2 or C. This will further reduce the lower- income patients' access to B2 and C facilities.
We have already observed this development in the polyclinics. Over the years, we have significantly improved the polyclinics. Modern polyclinics are much better equipped and organised than many neighbourhood GPs.
We have also increased the number of polyclinic doctors and nurses to cut down waiting times by patients. But these improvements in service standards do not have lasting effect. As soon as we reduce waiting times, even more patients who used to visit GPs are drawn into polyclinics, for better care at much reduced fees.
By improving facilities and service standards primarily for the benefit of lower-income patients, we have inadvertently driven up patient numbers all over again, and we are then back to the same problem of over-crowding and long waiting times.
Economists' way
ECONOMISTS are familiar with this phenomenon of demand exceeding supply, and have studied options on how to solve the allocation problem. There are two ways to distribute limited supply: either raise the price until supply equals demand, or let the queue mechanism sort out the distribution. Those who can afford private treatment but cannot afford to wait will leave the queue and go elsewhere.
We know some subsidised patients are unhappy with long waiting times. Our priority is to make sure the waiting times for the various conditions do not compromise patient care from a clinical point of view. Patients who need to be seen fairly quickly will be seen early. But beyond that, subsidised patients will need to endure some waiting.
MOH would very much like to improve care for subsidised patients, whether in polyclinics or in hospitals. But if significant improvement results in us drawing in patients who can well afford private treatment, our efforts will be nullified.
A third way
WE NEED a third way to share the limited health-care resources among competing demands. The question is how to do so fairly.
The extreme cases are easily addressed. All emergency cases should be treated immediately by the most competent doctors available. A patient's ability to pay should not be a barrier to life-saving services.
On the other extreme, demand for frills and cosmetic services can be left to the market, leaving patients to choose the providers based on their preference and what they are prepared to pay. Many Singaporeans, for example, seem happy to fork out thousands of dollars for non-medically necessary Lasik services provided by private operators.
Between these extremes lie a wide range of health-care services to address differing needs and ability to pay. For example, the use of generic medicine helps to keep health-care costs low but without compromising the outcome. Hence our policy is to only prescribe generic drugs for subsidised patients where generics are available. This is the right thing to do, but in the private wards we do allow brand-name drugs for patients who are prepared to pay for them.
With higher expectations, subsidised patients are increasingly demanding a higher level of care, including access to non-standard drugs based on their perceptions of what they need. With economic growth and rising standards of living, we can afford better treatments. We would like to extend such benefits to subsidised patients too. But we must do so in a way which does not unwittingly draw in patients who would have chosen the private wards.
The most logical way to address this contradiction is to apply the principle that higher-income patients should co- pay more for the same treatment than lower-income patients, if they choose to be treated in the subsidised wards. The former should get less subsidy than the latter. That is a fair and practical way to share limited health- care resources.
The lower-income patients will not be affected by this approach, but I know middle-income patients are particularly worried. While the principle is easy to explain, the implementation details worry a lot of people. We have studied this issue for some time and will continue to discuss the details with unionists, fellow MPs and the public. I am confident I can find a way of doing this which is fair to all and which does not impose unnecessary burdens on patients.
I think a fair way of doing this must fulfil five criteria:
First, patients must retain the freedom to choose. Rich or poor, they must be able to choose, say, a Class B2 ward if they wish. Anybody can choose to be admitted to a subsidised ward.
Second, all patients in Class C and B2 will be subsidised, but to different degrees. Higher-income patients will be subsidised less than lower-income patients, but their bills will remain affordable. For example, a better-off patient in Class B2 will still get higher subsidy than if he opts for Class B1, and should find his bill affordable.
Third, given the acute nature of hospitalisation, we need a simple way to make an assessment. The way it is done in nursing homes, whereby the entire family's income is ascertained, cannot be applied. We need a different approach. For example, we may base it on the patient's individual eligibility. Furthermore, any assessment of the patient's financial status should preferably be automated, based on objective evidence, such as wages as declared to Iras (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) or CPF Board.
Fourth, we will be sensitive to the circumstances of retirees and others who are not working. Without any income, they are particularly fearful that any chronic disease may wipe out their past savings. If we use their housing type to assess their eligibility, we may deliberately set the threshold at a sufficiently high level.
Fifth, no patient should be denied treatment because he cannot afford it. We will be flexible in implementation so that, at the margins, we will always give patients the benefit of the doubt. All needy citizens will remain protected by Medifund, the ultimate safety net for patients.
The implementation details will need to be fleshed out, but I feel confident we can work out a way to allocate health-care subsidies fairly to all segments of the population. Currently the profile of patients in Class C and Class B2 largely reflects our intended target beneficiaries of these wards. What this means is that a majority of Singaporeans should continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected.
Nevertheless, we need to put the system in place now, so that as we pump in more resources to upgrade the subsidised wards, we do not unwittingly cannibalise the private wards and services at the expense of the low-income patients. Our objective is to safeguard our current high standard of public hospitals and to ensure that all patients who need the care continue to receive it in a timely manner.
I hope to get your support for this proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REST ASSURED
No patient should be denied treatment because he cannot afford it. We will be flexible in implementation so that, at the margins, we will always give patients the benefit of the doubt. All needy citizens will remain protected by Medifund, the ultimate safety net for patients.
CHINA'S ONE-CHILD RULE - 7 Jan
CHINA'S ONE-CHILD RULE
Communist Party expels 500 for defying policy
BEIJING - THE authorities in central China have expelled 500 people from the Communist Party for defying the country's one-child policy, state media said yesterday.
In Hubei province, 93,084 people breached the policy last year, including 1,678 officials, the Xinhua news agency said, citing the provincial family planning commission.
Among the offenders, 500 were expelled from the Communist Party, 395 were dismissed from their posts and seven national and local lawmakers lost their political status.
No information was given as to the punishments meted out to the more than 90,000 other people.
China has been trying to crack down on officials and the wealthy who ignore its strict family planning laws. Being expelled from the party is a very serious punishment.
Under a policy implemented in the late 1970s, most urban couples are limited to one child and rural families to two to control population growth and conserve natural resources.
China's 1.3 billion people account for 20 per cent of the world's total. The government has pledged to keep the population under 1.36 billion in 2010, and under 1.45 billion in 2020.
But rising incomes mean some newly rich - such as businessmen and entertainment stars - can afford to break the rules and pay the resulting fines.
'More party members, celebrities and well-off people are violating the policies in recent years, which has undermined social equality,' Mr Yang Youwang, director of Hubei's family planning commission, was quoted as saying by Xinhua.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, REUTERS
Communist Party expels 500 for defying policy
BEIJING - THE authorities in central China have expelled 500 people from the Communist Party for defying the country's one-child policy, state media said yesterday.
In Hubei province, 93,084 people breached the policy last year, including 1,678 officials, the Xinhua news agency said, citing the provincial family planning commission.
Among the offenders, 500 were expelled from the Communist Party, 395 were dismissed from their posts and seven national and local lawmakers lost their political status.
No information was given as to the punishments meted out to the more than 90,000 other people.
China has been trying to crack down on officials and the wealthy who ignore its strict family planning laws. Being expelled from the party is a very serious punishment.
Under a policy implemented in the late 1970s, most urban couples are limited to one child and rural families to two to control population growth and conserve natural resources.
China's 1.3 billion people account for 20 per cent of the world's total. The government has pledged to keep the population under 1.36 billion in 2010, and under 1.45 billion in 2020.
But rising incomes mean some newly rich - such as businessmen and entertainment stars - can afford to break the rules and pay the resulting fines.
'More party members, celebrities and well-off people are violating the policies in recent years, which has undermined social equality,' Mr Yang Youwang, director of Hubei's family planning commission, was quoted as saying by Xinhua.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, REUTERS
Spoils of war 0 7 Jan
MILITARY OPERATIONS
Spoils of war
By Robert Karniol, Defence Writer
PHOTO: REUTERS
A COVERT US programme involving the disposal of military equipment captured from Iraqi forces during the 1990-1991 Gulf War appears to have been broader in scope than originally thought, suggesting that similar activities may remain pervasive.
The Washington Post revealed in October 1991 that Afghan guerillas were deploying tanks, artillery, mortars and other equipment captured in the Gulf War to support a major offensive against Gardez, a government-held garrison in eastern Afghanistan. Mujahideen officials said the material had been supplied by the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
The report had few details of the covert programme, reflecting uncertainty over the methodology and the amount of material involved. But it did provide some political context to the arrangement.
'The shipments of captured Iraqi equipment were authorised (in 1991), when the US and other supporters of the mujahideen were pursuing a two-track policy of backing diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the 12- year-old Afghan war while at the same time maintaining military pressure on Kabul's Soviet-backed government,' the article stated.
Beyond the glare of interest in the high-profile Afghan conflict, former Iraqi military equipment was later provided to several other recipients.
Bangladesh quietly obtained 40 tanks from captured Iraqi stocks in 1993, together with an unknown number of armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The former were mainly a mix of T-54/55 and Type 59 main battle tanks.
'We were last on the list,' a Bangladeshi source said.
The source identified the other recipients as Egypt, Pakistan and Syria. A retired senior US State Department official subsequently confirmed these four allocations while adding Saudi Arabia to the list.
The five countries named were all members of the 35-nation US-led coalition which came together under United Nations authorisation to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear to have used the Iraqi kit to support their allies in Afghanistan, while Bangladesh integrated the equipment it received with its own arsenal. It is not known what Egypt and Syria did with their windfall allocations.
But two of these countries, Pakistan and Syria, were subject to US arms sanctions.
US sanctions on Pakistan were based on the 1985 Pressler Amendment, which banned most US military and economic aid if the US president was unable to determine annually that Pakistan did not have nuclear arms.
This determination was withheld for the first time in 1990. Sanctions against Damascus were based on Syria's inclusion from 1979 on the US State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, and were firmed up under the 1989 Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Control Act.
These constraints suggest it would have been domestically unlawful for the US administration to provide the two countries with captured Iraqi equipment. However, a point raised by the Bangladeshi source suggests how this may have been bypassed.
Asked who gave the tanks and APCs to Dhaka, he said they were a gift from the government of Kuwait. The basis for Kuwait's claim of ownership remains unclear.
The Straits Times was unable to query the government of Kuwait on this point, and an attempt several years ago to discuss the issue with then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein proved unsuccessful. A request for related documents to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) elicited a hazy response that seems to confirm the programme's existence without providing any further insight.
'We located material that we determined is currently and properly classified and must be withheld in its entirety on the basis of FOIA exemptions (b) (1) and (b) (3),' the CIA stated in a letter from its Information and Privacy Coordinator.
'We also located US government material that CIA did not originate (and) we referred this material to its originating agency for review as it appears to be relevant to your request. That agency will respond to you directly.'
This unnamed agency never did respond. Similarly, the US Department of Defence did not answer a separate query on whether any war material captured from Iraq during the current conflict there has been distributed to any third party or provided to another US agency for such purpose.
Washington discreetly maintains an extensive structure focused on obtaining foreign military equipment.
'All the services have programmes directed at the acquisition of foreign material, and there are also some private 'contractors' involved,' said a retired US military officer who was directly involved in such efforts.
'The Defence Intelligence Agency (under the Defence Department) has its own section, the Foreign Material Office, whose activities are mainly overt although there are also covert programmes. The 'dark side' (CIA) has a parallel office but I can't remember the name, and if I did I probably couldn't tell you.
'The main purpose of these offices is in intelligence acquisition. Some of the equipment, once exploited, I assume went to Opfor (opposition forces) training centres.
'In theory, the information obtained is made available to all branches of the military. There were Defence Department coordination conferences in which we discussed what was being collected and what we wanted to collect.'
This system is operated under some sort of oversight process, whose workings are unclear. 'On one occasion we had to give something back because someone deemed that the item had not been 'correctly' obtained,' the former military source said.
Others suggested this system of oversight does not appear to include a requirement for the issuance of end-user certificates, making spoils of war ideal for covert transfer to a third party. End-user certificates are a formal control mechanism used by countries to ensure that legitimately exported military equipment is used for its stated purpose.
The US Defence Department never responded to a query on whether the transfer of captured war material requires an end-user certificate.
Regardless of this reticence, the use of captured war material for political benefit is not unique to the US. A French source said Paris did much the same with Soviet military kit captured from Libyan forces fighting in Chad in the 1980s, covertly transferring some of this equipment to friendly forces in Africa.
But there is a subtle difference between the French and US programmes: France was fighting independently in Chad, whereas US forces were in Iraq as part of a military coalition. Presumably, under the latter circumstances, the disposal of captured war material would be subject to a form of collective decision.
Clearly, this was not the case in the Gulf War. And this raises intriguing questions about future coalition-type military operations.
rkarniol@gmail.com
Spoils of war
By Robert Karniol, Defence Writer
PHOTO: REUTERS
A COVERT US programme involving the disposal of military equipment captured from Iraqi forces during the 1990-1991 Gulf War appears to have been broader in scope than originally thought, suggesting that similar activities may remain pervasive.
The Washington Post revealed in October 1991 that Afghan guerillas were deploying tanks, artillery, mortars and other equipment captured in the Gulf War to support a major offensive against Gardez, a government-held garrison in eastern Afghanistan. Mujahideen officials said the material had been supplied by the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
The report had few details of the covert programme, reflecting uncertainty over the methodology and the amount of material involved. But it did provide some political context to the arrangement.
'The shipments of captured Iraqi equipment were authorised (in 1991), when the US and other supporters of the mujahideen were pursuing a two-track policy of backing diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the 12- year-old Afghan war while at the same time maintaining military pressure on Kabul's Soviet-backed government,' the article stated.
Beyond the glare of interest in the high-profile Afghan conflict, former Iraqi military equipment was later provided to several other recipients.
Bangladesh quietly obtained 40 tanks from captured Iraqi stocks in 1993, together with an unknown number of armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The former were mainly a mix of T-54/55 and Type 59 main battle tanks.
'We were last on the list,' a Bangladeshi source said.
The source identified the other recipients as Egypt, Pakistan and Syria. A retired senior US State Department official subsequently confirmed these four allocations while adding Saudi Arabia to the list.
The five countries named were all members of the 35-nation US-led coalition which came together under United Nations authorisation to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear to have used the Iraqi kit to support their allies in Afghanistan, while Bangladesh integrated the equipment it received with its own arsenal. It is not known what Egypt and Syria did with their windfall allocations.
But two of these countries, Pakistan and Syria, were subject to US arms sanctions.
US sanctions on Pakistan were based on the 1985 Pressler Amendment, which banned most US military and economic aid if the US president was unable to determine annually that Pakistan did not have nuclear arms.
This determination was withheld for the first time in 1990. Sanctions against Damascus were based on Syria's inclusion from 1979 on the US State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, and were firmed up under the 1989 Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Control Act.
These constraints suggest it would have been domestically unlawful for the US administration to provide the two countries with captured Iraqi equipment. However, a point raised by the Bangladeshi source suggests how this may have been bypassed.
Asked who gave the tanks and APCs to Dhaka, he said they were a gift from the government of Kuwait. The basis for Kuwait's claim of ownership remains unclear.
The Straits Times was unable to query the government of Kuwait on this point, and an attempt several years ago to discuss the issue with then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein proved unsuccessful. A request for related documents to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) elicited a hazy response that seems to confirm the programme's existence without providing any further insight.
'We located material that we determined is currently and properly classified and must be withheld in its entirety on the basis of FOIA exemptions (b) (1) and (b) (3),' the CIA stated in a letter from its Information and Privacy Coordinator.
'We also located US government material that CIA did not originate (and) we referred this material to its originating agency for review as it appears to be relevant to your request. That agency will respond to you directly.'
This unnamed agency never did respond. Similarly, the US Department of Defence did not answer a separate query on whether any war material captured from Iraq during the current conflict there has been distributed to any third party or provided to another US agency for such purpose.
Washington discreetly maintains an extensive structure focused on obtaining foreign military equipment.
'All the services have programmes directed at the acquisition of foreign material, and there are also some private 'contractors' involved,' said a retired US military officer who was directly involved in such efforts.
'The Defence Intelligence Agency (under the Defence Department) has its own section, the Foreign Material Office, whose activities are mainly overt although there are also covert programmes. The 'dark side' (CIA) has a parallel office but I can't remember the name, and if I did I probably couldn't tell you.
'The main purpose of these offices is in intelligence acquisition. Some of the equipment, once exploited, I assume went to Opfor (opposition forces) training centres.
'In theory, the information obtained is made available to all branches of the military. There were Defence Department coordination conferences in which we discussed what was being collected and what we wanted to collect.'
This system is operated under some sort of oversight process, whose workings are unclear. 'On one occasion we had to give something back because someone deemed that the item had not been 'correctly' obtained,' the former military source said.
Others suggested this system of oversight does not appear to include a requirement for the issuance of end-user certificates, making spoils of war ideal for covert transfer to a third party. End-user certificates are a formal control mechanism used by countries to ensure that legitimately exported military equipment is used for its stated purpose.
The US Defence Department never responded to a query on whether the transfer of captured war material requires an end-user certificate.
Regardless of this reticence, the use of captured war material for political benefit is not unique to the US. A French source said Paris did much the same with Soviet military kit captured from Libyan forces fighting in Chad in the 1980s, covertly transferring some of this equipment to friendly forces in Africa.
But there is a subtle difference between the French and US programmes: France was fighting independently in Chad, whereas US forces were in Iraq as part of a military coalition. Presumably, under the latter circumstances, the disposal of captured war material would be subject to a form of collective decision.
Clearly, this was not the case in the Gulf War. And this raises intriguing questions about future coalition-type military operations.
rkarniol@gmail.com
Majority of S'poreans won't have to pay more with means testing
Jan 7, 2008
Majority of S'poreans won't have to pay more with means testing
By Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent
HEALTH Minister Khaw Boon Wan on Monday answered one major question over means testing at public hospitals: Will Singaporeans have to pay more?
Not the majority of those who currently opt for the heavily subsidised C and B2 class wards, he said.
His message would likely bring cheer to Singaporeans worried that means testing would mean higher medical costs for them.
He also promised that people would still be free to choose their preferred ward class. The difference is that the rich will get a lower subsidy for that class than the poor.
Determining the level of subsidy will also be made easy, possibly even automated, if based on salaries declared in tax or CPF returns.
The type of housing one lives in could be considered in determining subsidies for retirees, housewives, children and the unemployed.
But here too, Mr Khaw has promised to be generous, with possibly all HDB residents and those living in lower-end private housing continuing to enjoy current subsidy rates.
Mr Khaw said a deadline had not been set for implementing means testing but its introduction is inevitable.
It will enable the government to provide better care for the poor in future, without also attracting the well-off to compete for scarce resources.
'We do not begrudge lower-income patients the improvements in service which we can now better afford,' the minister said.
But, he added: 'If significant improvement results in us drawing in patients who can well afford private treatment, our efforts will be nullified.'
A high-income patient occupying a Class C bed does deprive a low-income patient - who has no alternative - of using that service.
Currently, 9 per cent of C class patients and 13 per cent of B2 patients are from families who are in the income bracket of the top 20 per cent.
Last year, the ministry spent $1.5 billion in health subsidies. This amount will go up over the years, but there is a limit. Means testing is needed as a 'a fair and pragmatic way to allocate limited healthcare resources,' he explained.
Addressing the fears of the middle-income group that means testing would drive up costs considerably, Mr Khaw promised to err on the side of generosity.
At a briefing of health-care professionals at Changi General Hospital on Monday, he said these were valid concerns which would be taken into account in the planning.
He is aware that frequent hospitalisation for the chronic sick, prolonged hospitalisation or major complications can cause 'severe financial hardship'.
On Monday, he gave the same assurance he has given on previous occasions: 'We will be flexible in implementation so that at the margins, we will always give patients the benefit of the doubt.'
In the short term, he said, the 'majority of Singaporeans should continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected.'
Feedback over the next few months will help determine the income cut-off point, and how much subsidy to give richer patients. The first public dialogue will be held on Sunday with about 500 participants from the People's Association.
In the same way that MediShield reforms were introduced after much public discussion, Mr Khaw said he preferred to have all concerns ironed out before pressing ahead with the scheme.
Read the full report in Tuesday's edition of The Straits Times.
Majority of S'poreans won't have to pay more with means testing
By Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent
HEALTH Minister Khaw Boon Wan on Monday answered one major question over means testing at public hospitals: Will Singaporeans have to pay more?
Not the majority of those who currently opt for the heavily subsidised C and B2 class wards, he said.
His message would likely bring cheer to Singaporeans worried that means testing would mean higher medical costs for them.
He also promised that people would still be free to choose their preferred ward class. The difference is that the rich will get a lower subsidy for that class than the poor.
Determining the level of subsidy will also be made easy, possibly even automated, if based on salaries declared in tax or CPF returns.
The type of housing one lives in could be considered in determining subsidies for retirees, housewives, children and the unemployed.
But here too, Mr Khaw has promised to be generous, with possibly all HDB residents and those living in lower-end private housing continuing to enjoy current subsidy rates.
Mr Khaw said a deadline had not been set for implementing means testing but its introduction is inevitable.
It will enable the government to provide better care for the poor in future, without also attracting the well-off to compete for scarce resources.
'We do not begrudge lower-income patients the improvements in service which we can now better afford,' the minister said.
But, he added: 'If significant improvement results in us drawing in patients who can well afford private treatment, our efforts will be nullified.'
A high-income patient occupying a Class C bed does deprive a low-income patient - who has no alternative - of using that service.
Currently, 9 per cent of C class patients and 13 per cent of B2 patients are from families who are in the income bracket of the top 20 per cent.
Last year, the ministry spent $1.5 billion in health subsidies. This amount will go up over the years, but there is a limit. Means testing is needed as a 'a fair and pragmatic way to allocate limited healthcare resources,' he explained.
Addressing the fears of the middle-income group that means testing would drive up costs considerably, Mr Khaw promised to err on the side of generosity.
At a briefing of health-care professionals at Changi General Hospital on Monday, he said these were valid concerns which would be taken into account in the planning.
He is aware that frequent hospitalisation for the chronic sick, prolonged hospitalisation or major complications can cause 'severe financial hardship'.
On Monday, he gave the same assurance he has given on previous occasions: 'We will be flexible in implementation so that at the margins, we will always give patients the benefit of the doubt.'
In the short term, he said, the 'majority of Singaporeans should continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected.'
Feedback over the next few months will help determine the income cut-off point, and how much subsidy to give richer patients. The first public dialogue will be held on Sunday with about 500 participants from the People's Association.
In the same way that MediShield reforms were introduced after much public discussion, Mr Khaw said he preferred to have all concerns ironed out before pressing ahead with the scheme.
Read the full report in Tuesday's edition of The Straits Times.
SWF
THE ARGUMENT FOR SWFs - 4 Jan 2008
A force for financial stability
By Janadas Devan
IN 1913, after the British Royal Navy had converted its fleet from coal to oil, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, made an investment on behalf of the British government. He never had much business sense - accounts gave him headaches, he admitted - but he had very fine strategic instincts.
On the lookout for assured oil supplies within the British sphere of influence, he zeroed in on Persia, now Iran. There he established the Anglo- Persian Oil Company with an initial capital outlay of £2.2 million. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company is now none other than BP or British Petroleum, one of the world's largest and most successful companies. The British government has hardly made a more spectacularly profitable investment since.
How would what Churchill did in 1913 differ from what the Chinese government is doing today, making strategic investments in energy companies throughout the world? On a smaller but no less significant scale, how would what Singapore's GIC and Temasek do, investing on behalf of the Singapore Government, differ from Churchill's grand coup in Persia?
There is really no difference - other than that Churchill was British, White and Western, and Chinese and Singaporeans are not. The British government in 1913 did not make investments through a so-called 'sovereign wealth fund' (SWF), but that is a minor detail. Governments have long made such investments; these investments have long been strategic in nature; Arab and Asian governments were hardly the first in the field.
Indeed, though most of the world's three-dozen odd SWFs today are Arab or Asian, they did not invent the vehicle. As both Mr Benoit Coeure of the French Treasury and Mr Philipp Hildebrand of the Swiss National Bank have noted in recent papers, the world's first SWF was founded in 1816 - France's Caisse des Dep�ts et Consignations, which still exists.
In the contemporary era, Americans were among the first to establish an SWF - the Alaska Permanent Reserve Fund, founded in 1976, five years before the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) was set up. GIC's founders, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former deputy prime minister Goh Keng Swee, were bold and audacious - they could not have known in 1981 that Singapore would continue to accumulate reserves in the following decades - but they did not invent SWFs.
So what is all the fuss about? Are SWFs really a threat to free markets, vehicles for the 'cross-border nationalisation' of private companies, as some media commentaries have made them out to seem? Are they so threatening as to need monitoring and regulation?
SWFs have indeed grown in the past decade, largely because of rising oil prices and America's burgeoning current account deficit, 'which currently absorbs about 60 per cent of the world's aggregate current account surpluses', according to Mr Hildebrand. By definition, China, Japan, Singapore and the other surplus countries cannot accumulate net financial claims on foreigners if the United States - as well as the United Kingdom, France and other countries - did not simultaneously accumulate net financial deficits.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that the combined assets of SWFs today total between US$1.9 trillion (S$2.7 trillion) and US$2.9 trillion. Arab sovereign funds command more than 50 per cent of these assets and those from Asia only 27 per cent. A recent Morgan Stanley study forecast that SWFs would grow to US$12 trillion by 2015.
That is indeed a large sum. But as Mr Hildebrand points out, 'such simplistic linear forecasts (of SWF growth) will likely prove to have been flawed'. They assume oil prices will remain high and that Asian countries will continue to amass surpluses at the current rate.
More to the point, as large as SWFs have become, they pale in comparison to other players in international markets. Insurance companies, for instance, hold US$18.5 trillion in assets, mutual funds US$19.3 trillion and pension funds US$21.6 trillion.
Indeed, SWFs account for just 1.3 per cent of the estimated US$190 trillion in total global financial assets. That may be a greater sum than the assets of hedge funds, but only seemingly so. As GIC deputy chairman and executive director Tony Tan pointed out recently, because hedge funds operate with substantial leverage, they effectively control larger assets than SWFs.
And though they trade far more actively than SWFs - with destabilising effects sometimes, as we discovered during the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis - the US government has consistently refused to regulate hedge funds.
In contrast, as US Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt acknowledged in the last issue of Foreign Affairs: 'SWFs are in principle long-term investors, which typically do not deviate from their strategic asset allocations in the face of short-term volatility. They are not highly leveraged, and it is difficult to see how they could be forced by regulatory capital requirements or sudden investor withdrawals to liquidate their positions quickly. In this context, SWFs may be considered a force for financial stability.'
The on-going sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, during which SWFs have pumped more than US$60 billion into Western financial institutions, proves Mr Kimmitt's point.
There are good reasons for drawing up guidelines for SWFs, as the IMF and the World Bank have been tasked to do by April this year. Better disclosure in the interest of transparency, better internal governance and risk- management practices, clearer investment objectives - these would be in the interest not only of recipient countries but also of the SWFs themselves, which are ultimately owned by citizens.
There can be no objection to guidelines that 'encourage SWFs to operate according to commercial principles with a long-term objective, free from political consideration', as Dr Tan put it. In addition, to prevent a backlash, it may well be prudent if SWFs refrained from taking controlling stakes in iconic First World companies.
What would be tragic is if SWFs - either because of an exaggerated view of their power or a false picture of their activities - gave rise to financial protectionism in developed countries. Both recipient as well as originating countries of sovereign funds will suffer if this were to happen.
SWFs, after all, are now a source of capital flows from what used to be the periphery to what used to be the centre. What was fine in 1913, when the flow went in the opposite direction, cannot not be fine now. Just as parts of the periphery suffered when they restricted such flows before, the centre will too if it did the same.
janadas@sph.com.sg
A force for financial stability
By Janadas Devan
IN 1913, after the British Royal Navy had converted its fleet from coal to oil, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, made an investment on behalf of the British government. He never had much business sense - accounts gave him headaches, he admitted - but he had very fine strategic instincts.
On the lookout for assured oil supplies within the British sphere of influence, he zeroed in on Persia, now Iran. There he established the Anglo- Persian Oil Company with an initial capital outlay of £2.2 million. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company is now none other than BP or British Petroleum, one of the world's largest and most successful companies. The British government has hardly made a more spectacularly profitable investment since.
How would what Churchill did in 1913 differ from what the Chinese government is doing today, making strategic investments in energy companies throughout the world? On a smaller but no less significant scale, how would what Singapore's GIC and Temasek do, investing on behalf of the Singapore Government, differ from Churchill's grand coup in Persia?
There is really no difference - other than that Churchill was British, White and Western, and Chinese and Singaporeans are not. The British government in 1913 did not make investments through a so-called 'sovereign wealth fund' (SWF), but that is a minor detail. Governments have long made such investments; these investments have long been strategic in nature; Arab and Asian governments were hardly the first in the field.
Indeed, though most of the world's three-dozen odd SWFs today are Arab or Asian, they did not invent the vehicle. As both Mr Benoit Coeure of the French Treasury and Mr Philipp Hildebrand of the Swiss National Bank have noted in recent papers, the world's first SWF was founded in 1816 - France's Caisse des Dep�ts et Consignations, which still exists.
In the contemporary era, Americans were among the first to establish an SWF - the Alaska Permanent Reserve Fund, founded in 1976, five years before the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) was set up. GIC's founders, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former deputy prime minister Goh Keng Swee, were bold and audacious - they could not have known in 1981 that Singapore would continue to accumulate reserves in the following decades - but they did not invent SWFs.
So what is all the fuss about? Are SWFs really a threat to free markets, vehicles for the 'cross-border nationalisation' of private companies, as some media commentaries have made them out to seem? Are they so threatening as to need monitoring and regulation?
SWFs have indeed grown in the past decade, largely because of rising oil prices and America's burgeoning current account deficit, 'which currently absorbs about 60 per cent of the world's aggregate current account surpluses', according to Mr Hildebrand. By definition, China, Japan, Singapore and the other surplus countries cannot accumulate net financial claims on foreigners if the United States - as well as the United Kingdom, France and other countries - did not simultaneously accumulate net financial deficits.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that the combined assets of SWFs today total between US$1.9 trillion (S$2.7 trillion) and US$2.9 trillion. Arab sovereign funds command more than 50 per cent of these assets and those from Asia only 27 per cent. A recent Morgan Stanley study forecast that SWFs would grow to US$12 trillion by 2015.
That is indeed a large sum. But as Mr Hildebrand points out, 'such simplistic linear forecasts (of SWF growth) will likely prove to have been flawed'. They assume oil prices will remain high and that Asian countries will continue to amass surpluses at the current rate.
More to the point, as large as SWFs have become, they pale in comparison to other players in international markets. Insurance companies, for instance, hold US$18.5 trillion in assets, mutual funds US$19.3 trillion and pension funds US$21.6 trillion.
Indeed, SWFs account for just 1.3 per cent of the estimated US$190 trillion in total global financial assets. That may be a greater sum than the assets of hedge funds, but only seemingly so. As GIC deputy chairman and executive director Tony Tan pointed out recently, because hedge funds operate with substantial leverage, they effectively control larger assets than SWFs.
And though they trade far more actively than SWFs - with destabilising effects sometimes, as we discovered during the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis - the US government has consistently refused to regulate hedge funds.
In contrast, as US Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt acknowledged in the last issue of Foreign Affairs: 'SWFs are in principle long-term investors, which typically do not deviate from their strategic asset allocations in the face of short-term volatility. They are not highly leveraged, and it is difficult to see how they could be forced by regulatory capital requirements or sudden investor withdrawals to liquidate their positions quickly. In this context, SWFs may be considered a force for financial stability.'
The on-going sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, during which SWFs have pumped more than US$60 billion into Western financial institutions, proves Mr Kimmitt's point.
There are good reasons for drawing up guidelines for SWFs, as the IMF and the World Bank have been tasked to do by April this year. Better disclosure in the interest of transparency, better internal governance and risk- management practices, clearer investment objectives - these would be in the interest not only of recipient countries but also of the SWFs themselves, which are ultimately owned by citizens.
There can be no objection to guidelines that 'encourage SWFs to operate according to commercial principles with a long-term objective, free from political consideration', as Dr Tan put it. In addition, to prevent a backlash, it may well be prudent if SWFs refrained from taking controlling stakes in iconic First World companies.
What would be tragic is if SWFs - either because of an exaggerated view of their power or a false picture of their activities - gave rise to financial protectionism in developed countries. Both recipient as well as originating countries of sovereign funds will suffer if this were to happen.
SWFs, after all, are now a source of capital flows from what used to be the periphery to what used to be the centre. What was fine in 1913, when the flow went in the opposite direction, cannot not be fine now. Just as parts of the periphery suffered when they restricted such flows before, the centre will too if it did the same.
janadas@sph.com.sg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)