May 22, 2011
Ministerial pay to be reviewed
Special committee will review basis and level of salaries, says PM Lee
By Lydia Lim, Deputy Political Editor

Ministers' salaries will be reviewed - that was the first dramatic change Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong chose to announce last night after being sworn in for another five-year term.

National Kidney Foundation chairman Gerard Ee will be the head of a committee to review the basis and level of these salaries, PM Lee said in a speech at the Istana, after he and his new Cabinet were sworn in by President S R Nathan.

Mr Lee made clear that while the country would always need committed and capable ministers who should be paid properly, 'politics is not a job or a career promotion. It is a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore'.

He thereby signalled that he and his new team know that unhappiness over high ministerial pay must be addressed if they are to renew the compact between government and people.

Mr Ee told The Sunday Times that a guiding principle of the review that his committee will undertake would be the Prime Minister's point that holding political office is about serving the public.

'PM has said in his speech that salaries must reflect the values and ethos of public service. That means that whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector and people looking at it will say, 'these people are serving and making a sacrifice',' he said.

He said he expects his committee to do an in-depth study of comparable salaries in the private sector, and to factor in other points of reference, such as general wage levels.

They have been handed a very serious task, he said, as the issue of ministers' pay is very important and has the attention of the electorate.

'We must be seen to be very fair and transparent. We must be able to robustly defend our recommendations,' he said.

Education Minister Heng Swee Keat said he fully supports Mr Lee's decision to review political salaries, 'so that we get an agreement on this important national issue'.

The policy of pegging ministers' salaries to top private sector pay has been in place since 1994 but remains controversial and unpopular.

The current benchmark for ministers' pay is two-thirds of the median income of the top eight earners in six professions, including bankers and lawyers.

The Government does not disclose how much each minister is paid but the most current figures released by the Public Service Division show that the annual salary of an entry-grade minister was $1.57 million in 2009.

The Prime Minister's salary that year was $3.04 million.

During the recent election campaign, opposition politicians attacked ministers' salaries as being far removed from the wages of ordinary Singaporeans. The policy had also failed to achieve its aim of attracting top private sector talent into government, they said.

Yesterday, political observers and economists welcomed the announcement of the review. Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong said it showed that there truly 'are no sacred cows'.

Others suggested that ministers' pay be pegged more closely to median rather than top incomes.

In his speech, Mr Lee pledged that his Government would review both its politics and its policies so as to better work with Singaporeans to 'create a just and fair society', a phrase the PAP used at its founding in 1954.

He spoke of renewal in three ways. First, a renewal of leadership to lead Singapore in a new phase of development.

Mr Lee has named a younger team to the Cabinet, and appointed four first-term Members of Parliament to the positions of minister and minister of state.

Second, a renewal in the Government's approach to policies, including a rethink of what is necessary and best for Singapore's future. 'Though Singaporeans trust that our policies are mostly sound, nothing should be sacrosanct,' he said.

The third renewal is of the values at the heart of government and society. Mr Lee pledged to work with Singaporeans to create a society which gives all citizens the best start in life, and leaves no one behind.

'A Singapore which excites our young and respects our old. A society that nurtures and inspires the human spirit, beyond material success,' he said.

lydia@sph.com.sg

------------------------
May 22, 2011
Ministerial salaries: A short history
By Rachel Chang

It has been an albatross around the Government's neck since the policy pegging ministerial pay to the private sector was first implemented in the mid-1990s.

The issue of ministerial pay first surfaced in 1972 and has remained controversial since. In 1985, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told Parliament that he had been a 'kept man' in all his years in public service.

His pay as PM was much less than what his brother and wife, both lawyers, were earning in private practice, he said. He himself would have earned as much if he had not gone into public service.

But it was only nine years later that the idea of finding a formula to peg ministerial salaries to private sector pay began gathering speed.

In January 1994, then Senior Minister Lee said such a formula would 'remove the need to justify pay revisions every few years as adjustments based on income tax figures could be made automatically each year'.

In October that year, a White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government was endorsed by Parliament after an intense three-day debate.

The benchmark at which a junior minister's salary would be set was two-thirds the average principal income of the top four earners in six professions: banking, accountancy, engineering, law, managing local manufacturing companies and managing multinational corporations.

The one-third discount was meant to be a 'visible demonstration of the sacrifice' entailed in becoming a minister.

Passionately imploring Singaporeans to support the benchmark, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong told Parliament: 'It will be penny wise and pound foolish if you deny me the means to get the best people in government.'

After the White Paper was endorsed by Parliament, an independent panel set the Prime Minister's pay at twice that of the most junior minister. Mr Goh was to be paid about $1.5 million.

But if Mr Lee had thought a benchmark would negate the necessity of the Government periodically justifying ministerial pay rises, he was disappointed. The benchmark itself threw up a different set of problems.

It was the target of much public confusion and ire, little of which was defused by the Government's continued defence of the policy - such as Mr Lee's 1996 speech to unionists complete with figures from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore showing what the top earners in the private sectors made.

Another headache for the Government: the difficulty of keeping ministerial pay pegged to the benchmark.

For example, while top private sector earners saw their incomes rise right through the 1990s, the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis saw the Public Service Division freeze pay increases in the public sector.

As then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted in April 2000: 'Workers' wages fell across the board in 1997 and 1998. At the top, we expected incomes also to fall, after a delay.

'But this did not happen. To our surprise, the civil service benchmarks rose steadily throughout the crisis.'

This was because even during a recession, there would be people in the private sector who would do well. The people whose salaries were reflected in the benchmarks differed from year to year.

Although the benchmarks might call for ministers' salaries to be raised, the political cost of doing so while workers' incomes fell was seen as too heavy. And so ministers often took pay cuts during economic crises.

By 2000, ministerial salaries were at only 70 per cent of the benchmark.

That year, Parliament debated the Government's intention to raise them to 80 per cent, and then to 100 per cent over three years.

The benchmark was also tweaked, in response to criticism that its methodology skewed upwards. It would now be two-thirds of the median income of the top eight earners in six professions, as opposed to two-thirds of the average income of the top four earners previously.

By including a broader sample, it would be more representative. Also, only 50 per cent of the stock options awarded to the top earners would be taken into account in calculating the benchmark , as the options were often outsized.

But the move to have ministerial pay cleave more to the benchmark was quickly stymied again - by the crises following the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, and the outbreak of Sars in 2003.

With the economy in the doldrums, ministers took pay cuts rather than following the benchmark upwards.

As a result, by 2007, the gap had again grown: Ministerial pay was at only 55 per cent of the benchmark.

The debate that followed over the move to bring pay to 70 per cent of the benchmark was heated and acrimonious.

Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim said in Parliament that the average worker's monthly wage would be earned by ministers in two to three hours.

'Does the Cabinet not feel a tinge of discomfort in drawing taxpayers' money at such a rate?' she asked.

Then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew rose to defend the policy, arguing that high salaries had kept the country's governance top-notch and uncorrupt for 50 years.

He painted a picture of what might happen if Singapore had sub-par ministers because it refused to pay for top talent:

'Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is. Your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries.'

As a result of the revisions in 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's pay increased from $2.5 million to $3.1 million.

He said he would donate his increase to charity over the next five years.

At the end of last year, ministerial salaries stood at about 70 per cent of the benchmark, after planned increments were deferred due to the 2009 financial crisis.

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

May 22, 2011
NEWS analYSIS
Deciding ministerial pay will be tough
By Chua Mui Hoong, Deputy Review Editor

Major-General (NS) Chan Chun Sing walking off the stage after receiving his letter of appointment from PM Lee and President Nathan yesterday. The ministerial pay review signals the PAP's intent to act on its election promise of change. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND LIM

When People's Action Party (PAP) leaders started talking about change, promising to listen to people's concerns and review policies, my first reaction was: Would they bite the bullet and review ministerial pay?

I wasn't the only Singaporean who wondered, judging from letters to The Straits Times Forum page and online blogs.

The issue of high pay for ministers has become so contentious that it is like a wound in the body politic.

It did not begin that way. In fact, the idea to have a formula to peg the pay of political office-holders to top corporate chiefs' pay was meant to remove the issue's political sting. Establish a formula, peg ministers' pay to it, and voila - you get a workable method to determine how much ministers should be paid. The aim was to establish a salary level high enough so the very able will not be required to accept a drastic fall in lifestyle as a result of entering politics, but not so high that it becomes an inducement in itself.

That, at least, was the theory.

In the 17 years since the formula has been in place, the result has been the reverse. Ministers' high pay has been criticised and debated extensively in Parliament - but always with the PAP defending the principle, arguing that it was necessary to pay top dollar to attract talent into the political ranks.

And yet, last night, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong chose to announce a review of political salaries at the swearing-in of his new Cabinet: 'One important area for review is political salaries. We will always need committed and capable ministers. Politics is not a job or a career promotion. It is a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore. But ministers should also be paid properly in order that Singapore can have honest, competent leadership over the long term.

'I know that Singaporeans have genuine concerns over the present salaries. Hence I am appointing a committee to review the basis and level of political salaries. The committee will be chaired by Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of Changi General Hospital and chairman of NKF (National Kidney Foundation).'

The review is very welcome. Coming after a decisive change in the Cabinet line-up, it signals the PAP's intent to act on its election promise of change.

But the hard work lies ahead. To be credible, the committee must consist of non-partisan, independent-minded people. Mr Ee, a social service veteran and trusted accountant, is a good choice as chair.

It is a cardinal principle that those who stand to benefit should not be involved in setting their own pay. Hence, the other members of the committee should not come from the ranks of political office-holders, or indeed from the civil service.

The committee's terms of reference should also be made clear, both so that it can do its work properly, and also so that Singaporeans' expectations are set right.

It should be wide enough to allow the committee free range to do what it believes is right for Singapore - balancing the need to pay ministers properly, as the PM put it, but not erode their standing in the public eye as public servants who have answered the call of duty to serve their country.

What has changed to induce PM Lee to announce a review of a pay formula that all three of Singapore's Prime Ministers - Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and the incumbent - have so stoutly defended?

We can only speculate, but the following are possible reasons:

First, the formula's failure to fulfil the objective of attracting private sector talent. In the last Cabinet, seven out of 18 ministers sworn in were from the private sector. At last night's swearing-in, only Foreign and Law Minister K. Shanmugam (former litigator) and Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen (former surgeon) among the 14 full ministers are from the private sector. The rest are from the public sector, the military or academia, although a few, like Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr S. Iswaran, were in private sector jobs before holding political office.

The entry of high-earning, high-flying professionals like Mr Chen Show Mao into opposition politics - without the lure of multi-million-dollar salaries - also discredited the PAP's argument in the public eye.

Second, the depth of resentment over the issue has intensified. Such feelings are impossible to quantify, but any trawl of online forums or coffee shop talk will suggest that high ministerial pay is the No. 1 pet hate of many Singaporeans. To be sure, unhappiness at this policy has been present from the outset, but it has been more recently amplified by social media online.

As many have noted, the issue has become the distorting lens through which many ordinary Singaporeans view the PAP government, and indeed all political matters. It eroded the moral high-ground the PAP occupied as a result of having provided decades of good government and the considerable personal sacrifice of its founders, and introduced a transactional tone into the people-government relationship: We pay top dollar, you deliver or get out.

Third, as some senior government figures have acknowledged privately, the current formula is flawed.

It is counter-cyclical because of the time-lag in getting income data. In a recession, the benchmark may go up as it is based on income from one or two years ago. But raising ministers' pay in a recession would be political suicide. Result: Actual pay given to ministers was typically 50 to 70 per cent of the benchmark for years. This creates a rather absurd effect of the PAP getting flak for very high salaries it deems politically untenable to pay to its ministers.

The formula is also flawed because it is pegged to outliers - the top eight earners in six professions. As many have noted, a windfall pay packet, say, or a once-in-a-lifetime deal, can propel someone into that top spot. But the next year, his pay may plunge.

The minister's pay however, always remains at that level, for it is pegged to the top earners, whoever they might be, every year. It is like striking lottery every year, the critics noted.

The review committee has to decide if a formula is a good way to determine political salaries. If yes, it should relook the current formula, and consider alternatives, such as linking it to median income.

Two things are certain about the committee's recommendations: it will result in lower political salaries. And whatever method it proposes will continue to be controversial.

But if the composition of the committee is right, it will have one strong plus factor: ministerial pay would have been determined by a committee of neutral people who do not benefit from it. That alone would make the entire review worthwhile.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

May 20, 2011
Perennial lowers target in 2nd IPO bid
Business trust eyes less than the $1.1b it aimed for in its first attempt
By Jonathan Kwok

PERENNIAL China Retail Trust is having another go at an initial public offering (IPO) after it surprised the market by postponing its first attempt in March.

The business trust led by ex-CapitaLand retail chief Pua Seck Guan has a less ambitious fund-raising target this time.

The IPO aims to raise gross proceeds of between $776.2 million and $842.7 million, less than the $1.1 billion Perennial had hoped for during the earlier attempt.

It is now offering units at between 70 cents and 76 cents each, giving an annualised yield of between 4.88 per cent and 5.3 per cent for this year. The projected yield for next year will be between 5.07 per cent and 5.51 per cent.

The trust had priced its units at $1 apiece during the initial exercise in February and March that was eventually deferred due to volatile global markets.

Then, it was offering distribution yields of just over 3 per cent. It is offering between 563.6 million and 577.8 million units to retail and institutional investors.

Separately, eight cornerstone investors, including Prudential Asset Management Singapore and a unit of Hong Kong's Nan Fung Group, will invest between $361.7 million and $383.6 million. Mr Pua will put $20 million into the IPO.

The firm is raising less cash this time after being granted a $325 million loan facility by DBS Bank and Standard Chartered Bank. It says it gives exposure to China's growing retail sector. It offers long-term capital growth by buying and developing malls and other assets as well as regular distributions from income generated by the assets, said the prospectus.

There are five assets in the initial portfolio - four malls and one office development in Shenyang, Foshan and Chengdu.

One mall is open and another will open by the third quarter. Both will make up about 63 per cent of the entire trust, based on gross floor area. The other properties will open progressively until 2014.

The firm has three options for commercial projects near high-speed railway stations in Chengdu, Xi'an and Changsha.

The prospectus did not say when the public offer will open but said the counter will start trading at 2pm on June 8.

The trust's sponsor is Perennial Real Estate, wholly owned by Mr Pua, former head of CapitaLand Retail and CapitaMall Trust Management. He led the creation of CapitaMall Trust, the first and largest real estate investment trust (Reit) here.

Observers said Perennial's payouts could grow strongly once the assets under development are completed and new malls are injected. 'The potential of Perennial will be when the individual properties come up... when they'll really gain traction in terms of the yield,' said Sias Research vice-president Roger Tan. 'But that's going to be (over) a few years.'

He added that with Perennial being a business trust, investors will have to take more of a risk on the properties under development. In contrast, Reits have strict limits on how much of the portfolios can be under development at any one time.

The recently launched Mapletree Commercial Trust has spent much of its time since listing trading near or slightly below the 88-cent IPO price, at which it offered a projected yield of about 5.7 per cent for the year to March next year.

jonkwok@sph.com.sg

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

PERENNIAL CHINA RETAIL TRUST

A business trust with five assets in the initial portfolio - four malls and one office development in Shenyang, Foshan and Chengdu.

THE IPO

- Aims to raise $776.2 million to $842.7 million
- 563.6 million to 577.8 million units being offered to retail and institutional investors
- Units priced at between 70 cents and 76 cents each; annualised yield of between 4.88 per cent and 5.3 per cent for this year

Say I am interested in shares in Frankfurt And ASX , what is a good brokerage advisable .

Sad to hear of how low-income families must struggle to make ends meet, while the super-rich continue spending like no one's business. The income gap is steadily widening......

Eligible Singaporeans get first instalment of workfare bonus
Posted: 17 May 2011 1636 hrs

SINGAPORE: Some 400,000 low-income Singaporeans will get the Workfare Special Bonus this year. Many would have received the first of four instalments on Sunday.

Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said the bonus, paid fully in cash, is to help low-income Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living and provide them with an additional incentive to work.

The Workfare Special Bonus is expected to cost the government about S$450 million over three years, and is part of the S$3.2 billion Grow & Share Package announced in this year's Budget.

Rabiah Konson, 45, cycles to work every day to save on transport cost. What she saves goes to pay for her children's transport expenses.

Surviving on a combined monthly salary of about S$2,300, she and her husband struggle to make ends meet.

So, she said the S$462 she will receive in cash under the Workfare Special Bonus comes at a good time.

She said: "My son intends to go to university....after this third year at Millennia Institute, complete (his) NS (National Service), he wants to go to university. So, whatever the government gives me - GST (Offset) money, Grow & Share money, whatever extra money, I keep for my son, for his education."

Mr Sivakumar Othrapathy, a father to two teenage boys and the family's sole bread winner, also received the bonus.

The 59-year-old's salary dropped by almost half about six years ago. This was after he switched his career in the hotel industry to become a security officer.

While the change means more family time, with his S$1,300-a-month salary, he finds it hard to keep up with the rising cost of living. He said the S$524 he gets from the Workfare Special Bonus is welcome relief. He hopes more can be done to help those in a similar situation as him.

- CNA/ir

The sorry tale of Rajaratnam......sigh.

May 13, 2011
insider trading
Wall Street success story comes to an end

NEW YORK: For years, Raj Rajaratnam was lionised as one of Wall Street's savviest investors. At its peak, the Galleon Group hedge fund he co-founded managed more than US$7 billion (S$8.7 billion) in assets.

Wednesday's verdict marks an end to a Wall Street success story.

Born in the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo to a relatively well-off family, Rajaratnam, 53, got a degree in engineering at the University of Sussex in Britain. He went to the United States in 1981 to study business at the prestigious Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Two of his Wharton classmates - Anil Kumar, who became a partner at McKinsey & Co, and Rajiv Goel, who was a top executive at Intel - testified against him at the trial, telling jurors how their relationships began at the school and how they turned to crime.

Upon graduation, Rajaratnam headed for Wall Street. His first job was at Chase Manhattan Bank, where he was a lending officer in the group that made loans to high-tech companies.

In 1985, he joined Needham & Co, a small investment bank that specialised in technology and health-care companies. He rapidly became a success, winning underwriting business for Needham and impressing many technology companies with the diligence of his research. By 1991, he was made president.

In November 1996, with former colleagues at Needham, he founded Galleon, a technology hedge fund. Investors clamoured to put their money with him and Galleon was managing almost US$1 billion by the end of the following year. It attracted clients like New Jersey's state pension fund and UBS, the giant Swiss bank.

Galleon brought Rajaratnam great wealth, estimated by Forbes magazine at US$1.3 billion. During the trial, Rajaratnam's former friends told the jury about lavish vacations. For his 50th birthday, he chartered a private jet to fly dozens of family members and friends for a safari in Kenya.

As early as 1999, investigators say they were looking at Rajaratnam, who is married with three children, but it was almost a decade later that they sought permission from a judge to tap the hedge fund manager's phone.

Fiercely competitive, Rajaratnam could be heard on wiretaps speaking in sports and military metaphors. He compared himself to fighting Muhammad Ali in the ring and said during the financial crisis: 'I'm feeling the pain, but they can't kill me. I'm a warrior.'

NEW YORK TIMES, BLOOMBERG

The accomplices

THE SAD SACK

'Hey, get me a job with one of your powerful friends, man,' Rajiv Goel, the Intel executive, urged Rajaratnam.

The request was textbook Goel. Some 30 years after they met at Wharton, Goel was a dissatisfied mid-level manager while Rajaratnam was a hedge fund titan.

Goel gave his friend advance word of Intel's earnings results and a US$1 billion investment.

In return, Rajaratnam lent or gave Goel a total of US$600,000. He also earned about US$750,000 for Goel by trading on inside information in Goel's account at Schwab.

THE HEDGE FUND TEMPTRESS

Her platinum blonde locks and bold manner turned heads in the tech world and on Wall Street.

Danielle Chiesi (above), a former beauty queen, was well aware of that attention and used it to her advantage in the male-dominated world of hedge funds, where she plied her trade at New Castle Partners.

'I just got a call from my guy,' she told Rajaratnam in one call, referring to a source. 'I played him like a finely tuned piano.'

Chiesi had an affair with Robert Moffatt, a former executive at IBM who is serving jail time after admitting passing confidential information to her.

She also had an affair with her boss, Mark Kurland, who also pleaded guilty to insider trading.

Squeezing information from corporate insiders excited Chiesi. 'It's a conquest,' she told Rajaratnam. 'It's mentally fabulous for me.'

THE RELUCTANT ACCESSORY

Anil Kumar earned several million dollars a year as a senior executive at McKinsey. He had a gruelling schedule, travelling some 50,000km a month.

In 2003, Rajaratnam told his business school classmate that he was underpaid.

Kumar would later depict himself as a reluctant felon, initially rejecting Rajaratnam's offer. But after they devised an elaborate scheme to hide the payments, he began moonlighting as a private consultant to Rajaratnam.

NEW YORK TIMES

A very sad case of fraud and deceit. She was interviewed by Me & My Money back in 2001!

May 11, 2011
Ex-AIA agent charged over fake $6.2m policy
She faces 19 charges; bail cut from $2m to $300k on appeal
By Lorna Tan, Senior Correspondent

Sally Low Ai Ming, 34, allegedly told a businessman he could apply for an "AIA Thank You" policy when such a product did not exist. This led him to remit US$5.06 million to AIA. -- ST FILE PHOTO

A FORMER AIA insurance agent who allegedly sold a fake US$5 million (S$6.2 million) insurance policy is facing fraud and cheating charges, including using forged documents.

The charges were laid against Sally Low Ai Ming, 34, at the Subordinate Court last Friday and bail set at $2 million. She failed to raise the cash and was remanded at Changi Women's Prison.

She broke down when she appeared in court yesterday to ask that the bail be reduced to $200,000. Her mother also cried. Bail was revised to $300,000 but Low has to surrender her passport and report weekly to the authorities.

The charges - four of cheating, 11 of fraudulent use of forged documents and four of moving crime proceeds to bank accounts and to partially pay for a property - stem from a police report made more than a year ago by a customer who bought a fake 'AIA Thank You' policy from Low in November 2002.

Low allegedly told semi-retired businessman Ong Han Ling, 72, that he could apply for the policy when she knew such a product did not exist. The act of deception led him to remit US$5.06 million to AIA, according to the charge sheet.

Low also allegedly told Mr Ong that two computer errors at AIA caused three policies to be issued in his name and that of his wife. It is claimed that Low then caused these policies to be surrendered and the three sums - about US$5.29 million, US$1 million and $1 million - were delivered to her on behalf of AIA.

There were in fact no computer errors.

The 11 fraud charges include using forged AIA documents such as sales illustration forms, application forms, a letter of confirmation and a statement of account.

Low was also charged with transferring the crime proceeds to a bank account outside Singapore and to another person's account, and using the money to fund a down payment on a Sentosa Cove condo.

The 'Thank You' policy was supposed to make a maturity payout - which included annual fixed returns of up to 7 per cent - after five years.

Mr Ong, who is also pursuing a civil suit against Low, alleges that she used the premium meant for the 'Thank You' policy to buy four AIA plans under his name and that of his wife and their daughter, all without their knowledge.

Mr Ong is suing Low for about $3.6 million plus the loss of use of his funds.

The $3.6 million is the amount outstanding after Low made restitution to Mr Ong for payouts due to him under the policies she had taken out in his name.

In March last year, Mr Ong's lawyers had obtained an injunction to freeze Low's assets. These included proceeds from the sale of a condominium in Cairnhill and funds in several bank accounts in Singapore and Indonesia.

In his lawsuit, Mr Ong said he found out from AIA that the 'Thank You' policy was fake only when he made inquiries about the maturity payouts due in January 2008.

Low has counterclaimed, alleging in court documents that she was merely an accomplice in an elaborate ploy conceived by Mr Ong to defraud AIA.

She said she had approached Mr Ong to buy more policies in 2002 in order to further her ambition of becoming a top agent but he devised a plan to defraud AIA and share half the gains.

A former top agent at AIA, Low earned more than $300,000 in annual commissions from new policies in 1999 and 2000. She was sacked by the insurer in September 2009.

lorna@sph.com.sg

-------------------------------------------------------
Insurance agent was a high-flier

A former high-flying agent at insurer AIA, Ms Sally Low Ai Ming was profiled in a rags-to-riches story by The Sunday Times in March 2001.

She was 24 then, and hailed as 'one of the world's youngest and most successful insurance agents'.
The story told of the meteoric rise in her insurance career after she graduated from the National University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Ms Low, now 33, joined the insurance industry in 1998. Her boss, who managed the AIA agency she worked in, was Mr Rayner Lee. Mr Lee is married to an AIA super agent, Ms Mary Chen, a former leading actress from Taiwan.

It was reported that in 1999 and the year after, Ms Low earned more than $300,000 in annual commission from new policies. That placed her at the Top of the Table (TOT) - the highest recognition for Million Dollar Round Table agents.

In fact, she was one of just six agents - out of around 20,000 from Singapore - who qualified for that distinction then. She was believed to be among the youngest, if not the youngest, TOT agents in the world in 2000.

Despite her success, it was reported that Ms Low continued to lead a humble lifestyle, getting around mostly by bus and train. Home then was a Housing Board flat in Eunos where she lived with her mother, grandmother and younger brother.

Ms Low had said that she became an insurance agent because she badly wanted to provide well for her family after her father walked out on them.

To pay her way through university, she worked part-time as a salesgirl.

In the 2001 article, Ms Low was also praised by Ms Chen for her after-sales service. When her clients were busy or out of town, she would take their children shopping or to school.

A decade later, Ms Low has been sacked by AIA and is currently embroiled in a high-profile lawsuit with a former client.

When contacted last Friday, she said she is currently unemployed and is living in a Housing Board flat with her mother in Toa Payoh.

Lorna Tan

http://www.nextview.com/events/sg_201105...edm2a.html

We know in singapore current system, whoever get the most MPs form the next governement. However serving in consitituency do not need ministerial level. Neither will capable MPs elected mean national policies will be aligned to our thoughts.

I just wrote an article on it. Welcome comment.
http://cory-investor.blogspot.com/2011/0...apore.html


Cory

Interesting isn't it? Parents are now spending even more than they used to on Birthday Parties with themes. It's a sign of the times, and a reflection of our increasingly materialistic culture.

May 1, 2011
Bash the budget
Children's birthday parties are getting bigger and more lavishas parents splurge on elaborate theme parties
By Natasha Ann Zachariah

Birthday parties for children, which used to be just for close families and friends, are getting bigger, and more expensive too.

Parent-planned parties have made way for themed parties planned by professionals, which run into the thousands of dollars, compared to just a few hundred dollars before.

The Ministry of Party, an 11-year-old party planning company which specialises in children's birthday parties, has seen more Singaporeans willing to throw a party for their children, sparing no cost.

And they are not just the pampered offspring of the well-heeled. Owner Edwin Goh, 31, says that it is no longer a 'rich man's event'.

'When we first started out, we were doing parties in landed property homes and condos, but these days we get many requests from HDB homes as well. Parents will spend on their children, especially if the child wants it. '

His services such as balloon sculpting and face painting cost between $350 and $800 for one party which usually runs for two to three hours, depending on the number of activities.

His most extravagant party? A $15,000 affair held at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, where his client, a mother of two, ordered expensive organic food for party guests.

While the majority of children's birthday parties may not be as indulgent, parents are still spending more than they previously did. LifeStyle reported in 2007 that the average party started at $300 for a birthday package, but now, parents can expect to spend upwards of $2,000 to throw a bash.

But for one parent, having the chance to celebrate her children's birthdays is worth the amount she has to pay. Mrs Celian Leong, 35, has yearly birthday parties for each of her three children - two sons aged eight and six, and a 21/2-year-old daughter - and does not mind spending at least $2,000 each birthday.

The gourmet consultant recently threw a party for her middle child, Ee-Jun, at a function room at Suntec City, for about 80 people.

She spent a month planning the gongfu-themed party for her Bruce Lee-loving son. She engaged Ministry of Party to provide a magician who also did balloon sculpting and played games with the 30 children. In total, she spent an estimated $2,500 to $3,000 for the party which was held last month.

'It is nice to have parties for them because they really do enjoy it, not us parents,' she says. 'It also shows how much we value our children and want to make it a memorable day for them.'

To add some pizzazz, she personalised 50 goody boxes filled with candies and toys, which were not available locally and which she sourced online. For previous parties, she had printed shirts, lunch boxes and customised caps with her son's face on them.

Mrs Leong, who says that her parties get bigger every year, says: 'I do get good feedback from the other parents that the party is well-planned and that their children have many things to take home. It makes me happy when everyone enjoys it.'

For herself, it is also a chance to network and socialise with other parents with whom she volunteers at her sons' schools.

'It's a chance to get to know them outside of the school context. It's also good that I know who my sons' friends' parents are. This is just like buying them dinner.'

Party planner Aaron Leong of Party Impact, says some parents do feel the pressure to put on a good party, sometimes even from their children.

The planner, who has been in the business for nine years, says: 'Nowadays, the children are very mature and they know what they want for their parties and they will ask for it, and parents will pay for it.'

Mother-of-two Samantha Tay recently wrote to The Straits Times lamenting her experience with lavish children's birthday parties, which she described as parents 'flaunting their wealth in a game of one- upmanship against neighbours and friends'.

When contacted, the 38-year-old education administrator says: 'Maybe it is a reflection of my insecurity on my part as a parent, but there is definitely pressure to put on something good.'

And looking good applies to every aspect of the party, right down to the cake. In the past, where store-bought 2-D cartoon character cakes from bakery chains that cost between $40 and $60 were the norm, nowadays parents are going for customised fondant cakes with unique designs from smaller bakeries.

Ms Foo Mei-Zee, owner of Let Them Eat Cake, who charges $250 for a two-tier fondant cake, says of parents today: 'They know exactly what they want, have done their research and want a perfect cake. They want quality and they don't mind paying for it because they want something beautiful and elegant.'

Housewife Christine Lee, 44, who recently threw her son a laser tag shootout party, paid $120 for a 3-D racing track cake, complete with cars.

She says: 'To have a normal cake is so common. It's something that happens once year, and you definitely want something nice, so why not?'

With business to cash in on, party planners are rolling out new concepts to rival what are already on offer so that parents get that desired one-of-a-kind party.

Party planner Nor Jannah, owner of The Little Ones, works with Ms Foo to create a dessert bar around themes like cupcake party or candy shoppe. She has even thrown a chocolate fondue party for kids. Her services start at $350.

One party she does has customised chocolate bars or mineral water bottles with the child's name on it, along with cupcakes, brownies and even intricately designed marshmallow pots. The total costs can go upwards of $1,000. Since she started in April last year, Ms Jannah has done about 10 such parties.

The price, she says, can be justified, given that cost is spread over a big guest list.

'To parents, they look at it overall,' she says. 'It's worth it because the price includes balloons, decorations and food and there are 30 to 40 kids. It's quite a small amount per guest.'

And guests lists, party planners say, can rival a small wedding - sometimes more than 100 people are invited. To up the ante, some parents even book function rooms in hotels to fit everyone in, just like a small wedding party.

The Royal Plaza on Scotts has seen a 20 per cent increase in demand for function rooms for children's parties compared to last year. Typically, they host between 6 to 12 birthday parties a year Its buffet lunch or high tea spread for birthday packages range from $50 to $55 a person.

Over at Marina Mandarin Singapore, it does about 10 to 15 children's parties a year where the guest list ranges from 50 to 100 people, with packages between $55 and $90 a head.

Lawyer Michelle Yong is not sold on the idea of a big bash, even for her daughter's first birthday - an occasion that is usually celebrated with much pomp and grandeur.

The 29-year-old decided to keep things 'small', to just 30 close friends and family at her house, and spent $300, mostly on desserts such as cupcakes and trifles.

'I wanted it to be cosy and intimate, nothing quite over the top. After all, she's too young to remember the details but I wanted a sense of the occasion. We'll just have the party immortalised in pictures.'

natashaz@sph.com.sg

Forum with many accountants and financial experts any comment ?