Two out of every three pre-schoolers will have a place in government or government-supported pre-schools by 2023

The PAP Government will tackle inequality robustly by intervening upstream early in a child's life.

Minister of Social and Family Development, Mr Desmond Lee said that to give young Singaporeans a good start in life, MSF will press on with the transformation of the early childhood sector, enabling more families to benefit from ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE and GOOD QUALITY early childhood services.

“We will expand full-day pre-school places to provide a place for every child who needs one.

Two out of every three pre-schoolers will have a place in government or government-supported pre-schools by 2023 in centres run by Anchor Operators and Partner Operators, as well as MOE Kindergartens,” said Mr Lee.

Building for our seniors

WHAT OUR SENIORS CAN LOOK FORWARD TO...

Singapore will always be a work in progress, said Minister for National Development, Lawrence Wong in his addendum to the President's Address.

Mr Wong said MND will pay special attention to the housing needs of particular groups of Singaporeans.

1. For our SENIORS, MND will pilot a NEW MODEL of ASSISTED LIVING that COMBINES HOUSING WITH CARE SERVICES 👍👍 to enable them to live independently and with dignity.

2. The EASE programme will also be updated to add new items including items such as accessibility solutions for flats with multiple-steps entraces. 👍👍

3. More will be done to help seniors who wish to monetise the value of their flats for retirement.

Ministry of Defence's Addendum to the President's Address

Ultimately, Singaporeans are responsible for our own defence.

Our strongest weapon against external forces is our unity and resolve to protect our way of life and keep Singapore independent and sovereign.

No amount of tanks, planes, or ships – no matter how sophisticated the systems we build – can make up for a divided nation.

In this new era, where hybrid warfare can be waged first through cyberspace before any physical means, potential aggressors will seek to turn one Singaporean against the other to weaken our social compact.

More than ever, Total Defence is needed and every Singaporean has to play his or her part to safeguard Singapore.

Only together, can we continue to keep Singapore safe and secure for another generation.

A strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) safeguards Singapore’s security, independence, and sovereignty.

Without security and stability, we cannot achieve economic or social progress.

Excerpts of speech by Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen in Parliament, 8 May 2018.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL

Ultimately, Singaporeans are responsible for our own defence.

Our strongest weapon against external forces is our unity and resolve to protect our way of life and keep Singapore independent and sovereign.

No amount of tanks, planes, or ships – no matter how sophisticated the systems we build – can make up for a divided nation.

In this new era, where hybrid warfare can be waged first through cyberspace before any physical means, potential aggressors will seek to turn one Singaporean against the other to weaken our social compact.

More than ever, Total Defence is needed and every Singaporean has to play his or her part to safeguard Singapore.

Only together, can we continue to keep Singapore safe and secure for another generation.

MHA's ADDENDUM TO THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS

ADDENDUM TO THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS

The security environment remains complex.

The terrorism threat to Singapore continues to be at a high level. We will continue to strengthen our counter-terrorism capabilities.

Criminal syndicates exploit technology and the Internet, and operate across national boundaries. Online scams and online trafficking of drugs have become more prevalent. Our society has also been impacted by the worsening global drug situation, with new psychoactive substances emerging, and some countries adopting a more liberal approach towards drugs.

We need to guard against attempts by foreign parties to exploit fault lines in our society and influence developments in Singapore to advance their own agenda. It is for Singaporeans to decide on our domestic politics and policies. We must defend our sovereign right to make choices for ourselves.

Our racial and religious harmony has been a pillar of our peace, prosperity and progress. We must defend this vigorously, reject unequivocally teachings and practices that would divide us, and instead take active steps to grow our common space.

The Home Team will have to deal with these security challenges even as we grapple with manpower constraints.

- Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in Parliament.

Our racial and religious harmony has been a pillar of our peace, prosperity and progress. We must defend this vigorously, reject unequivocally teachings and practices that would divide us, and instead take active steps to grow our common space.

- Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam

MOT's Addenda to President's Address

MOT's Addenda to President's Address:

Boosting Singapore’s global connectivity to bolster economy, create jobs.

Good connectivity bolsters the economy, creates good jobs and raises the quality of life for Singaporeans, says Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan.

To secure Singapore’s position as a world-class city and key transport node between Asia and the world, MOT will continue investing in transport infrastructure.

These include the expansion of Changi Airport and the building of the “next-generation” Tuas port.

The aviation and maritime sectors , Mr Khaw said, are “the lifelines of Singapore’s economy”.

Together, they contribute more than 10 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and 250,000 jobs, but this cannot be taken for granted.

“Many in the region are working hard to replace us, with shipping and flight routes bypassing Singapore,” said Mr Khaw.

The future Tuas mega port and Changi Terminal 5 will strengthen Singapore’s edge “to seize new opportunities and capture greater growth”, he added.

New connections with Malaysia, including the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore high-speed rail, are also underway. These will create opportunities for work and play, while giving both countries a greater stake in each other’s success, said Mr Khaw.

Making Singapore’s public transport more inclusive

All public buses wheelchair-accessible in two years.

By 2022, the number of pedestrian overhead bridges with lifts will be tripled, while 50 locations with customised senior-friendly road safety features, also known as the “Silver Zones”, will be ready in 2023.

Technology will also be tapped to enhance transport operations. These involve the use of data analytics to pre-empt faults in the rail network, and the adoption of predictive analytics, machine learning and other data tools in areas like air and vessel traffic management.

Another 130km will be added to the rail network by 2030, with ongoing construction of the Thomson-East Coast Line and upcoming projects, such as the Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line.

There will also be an extension of cycling networks and bike parking facilities to all HDB towns by 2030, as well as the introduction of a licensing framework for bicycle-sharing operators and mandatory registration for e-scooters by the end of this year.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/president-address-addenda-singapore-economy-jobs-10213028

The Defence of Thum Ping Tjin

Thanks to the trustees of Project Southeast Asia who accidentally copied Parliament Secretariat in their email exchange, we now know that PJ Thum himself was involved in the statement of support for himself. 😂🙄😒

And the show of support from all over the world was not spontaneous as it appears. 😌

Dr Kreager's defence of Thum's credentials is a facepalm moment. Really.

He does not use the word 'historian'.

A member of University of Oxford?? What does it mean to be a member of the university? The description is so vague that it raise more questions and doubt than anything.

Woah, Oxford University must be feeling the need to defend their own reputation and the quality of their exams, seeing that they are out in force to defend Thum's thesis. 😂😂😂

Or they are trying to hookwink people. 🙄

They said Dr Thum's doctoral thesis, CHINESE LANGUAGE POLITICAL MOBILISATION IN SINGAPORE, 1953-1963, was "written to the VERY HIGHEST STANDARDS of historical research that Oxford expects of its doctoral students", and his thesis was "successfully examined".

Hey, but why are they talking about his thesis and his exams? 😂🙄

NO ONE IS QUESTIONING HOW HE OBTAINED HIS PhD. LOL

THUM WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE ACADEMIC POSITION CURRENTLY HELD BY HIM.

He was asked to clarify because he gave 3 different versions.

Apparently it is such a tough question to answer that he has to mobilize such all of Oxford and the world to his defence.

As an illustration, if you are looking to change job and your prospective employer ask you for your currently held position in your present company, do you tell them where you obtain your degree with flying colours?

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/oxford-academics-defend-historian-thums-academic-credentails

Imagine.

You are an engineer looking to change your job. At the interview, you were asked by the interviewers for the position that you are holding in your current company.

You replied by producing testimonies of your examiner and supervisors in university praising your academic performance in the university. 😂😂😂

Guess you won't be getting the new job with that response.

Are the Oxford academics really so dense that they have gone totally off tangent in their defence of Thum?

So the support that you saw for THUM PING TJIN was primarily engineered by Thum himself

So the support that you saw for THUM PING TJIN was primarily engineered by Thum himself working in connection with DR PHILIP KREAGER, an academic and a director of a company linked to GEORGE SOROS.

In a new statement released by Mr Charles Chong, chairman of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Mr Chong said:

"We must protect our independence and the institution of Parliament. The information now available suggests that there has been a coordinated attempt, with foreign actors involved, to try to influence and subvert our parliamentary processes. This is a serious matter."

Mr Chong has asked for these emails to be released because they lift the curtain on what has been happening in secret.

HERE IS THE STATEMENT IN FULL

Project Southeast Asia

Background

1. On 16 April 2018, the trustees of Project Southeast Asia made an online statement in support of Dr Thum Ping Tjin. I responded to them on 20 April 2018. A copy of my response is enclosed (Annex A).

2. The trustees claimed that the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which I chair, ignored Dr Thum's submission when we questioned him about Operation Coldstore.

This is untrue. Operation Coldstore was very much part of Dr Thum's submission, which was why he was questioned about it. I also took exception to their claim that historical research could not be challenged by parliamentarians.

I told them that they were being presumptuous in telling the Parliament of Singapore how to do its job.

3. The points made by Project Southeast Asia were similar to those in a separate and ANONYMOUSLY DRAFTED OPEN LETTER, which I had responded to earlier. The similarity suggests the same hands were involved in both documents. Project Southeast Asia urged the public to sign the Open Letter.

Dr Kreager's email

4. After Parliament Secretariat sent my response to the trustees, there was an exchange between two of the trustees, with the other trustees copied. The emails were copied to Parliament Secretariat, it would appear inadvertently.

5. One Professor Jeff Burley, a trustee of Project Southeast Asia, wrote to Dr Philip Kreager on 21 April 2018, asking:

"Has PJ seen all the correspondence? If so, what is his response to this official message from Singapore? There comes a point in any discussion like this where you can just draw a line and say we tried.

Pursuing things to the bitter end is more likely to be bitter for us than for a government and the University is unlikely to want a pitched battle."

6. Dr Philip Kreager replied, on 22 April 2018, thus:

"I have kept continuous contact with PJ on all of this, he has amongst other things suggested a draft reply for me, which I will turn to on return...and which point I shall write to all the trustees on recent developments, which are several and positive.

There is a lot of traction, but I need to think about next steps, which I can't just now, as the meeting is a small but intense historical workshop...but there will be a lot of historians from the meeting who will be signing the petition, and I am hopeful that several of them will be circulating our statement and the online letter for signature to their many colleagues here …"

7. I have asked for these emails to be released because they lift the curtain on what has been happening in secret. (Annex B)

What Dr Kreager's email reveals

8. Dr Kreager's email is revealing.

9. First, it strongly suggests that Dr Thum was involved in the Statement by Project Southeast Asia ("I have kept continuous contact with PJ on all of this, he has amongst other things suggested a draft reply for me"). If so, it is likely Dr Thum was involved in the Open Letter as well, since the Open Letter is remarkably similar to the Statement by Project Southeast Asia, with similar misstatements.

10. Second, Dr Kreager is actively campaigning for Dr Thum – among other things, by circulating the Statement by Project Southeast Asia and asking for signatures to the Open Letter ("the meeting is a small but intense historical workshop...but there will be a lot of historians

from the meeting who will be signing the petition, and I am hopeful that several of them will be circulating our statement and the online letter for signature to their many colleagues here…").

11. Third, Dr Kreager and Dr Thum have apparently been working closely together throughout this process.

12. The Statement by Project Southeast Asia and the Open Letter do not disclose any of this information. They give an appearance of spontaneous academic support for Dr Thum in his battle against parliamentarians in an ex-colony.

Dr Kreager's email suggest this appearance is misleading. The "support" seems to have been primarily engineered by Dr Thum himself, working in close concert with Dr Kreager.

Who is Dr Kreager?

13. The public should also know about Dr Kreager's relationship with Dr Thum.

(1) Dr Kreager and Dr Thum are the only two directors of a company called Observatory Southeast Asia UK Ltd (OSEA UK). OSEA UK received money from entities linked to George Soros, and intended to set up a subsidiary to carry out political activities in Singapore. Dr Kreager and Dr Thum are thus not mere academic colleagues. They are also business partners and fellow activists engaged in a political project directed at Singaporeans.

(2) OSEA UK owns and manages the New Naratif website. The website carries political articles on Singapore. Dr Thum co-founded the website. Ms Kirsten Han is involved with the website as well.

(3) OSEA UK was to be the parent company of OSEA Pte Ltd. Dr Thum and Ms Han were to be the directors of OSEA Pte Ltd.

The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority had refused registration of OSEA Pte Ltd, as the purposes of the proposed company were clearly political in nature and the company was going to carry out political activities in Singapore with the use of foreign monies collected by OSEA UK.

(4) In addition to their business partnership, Dr Kreager appears to be Dr Thum's academic sponsor too. He is the chairman of Project Southeast Asia, where Dr Thum is the coordinator. Dr Kreager is also the Director of the Fertility and Reproduction Studies Group at Oxford's School of Anthropology, where Dr Thum is a visiting scholar.

14. It is not clear if those being asked to support the Project Southeast Asia Statement, and the Open Letter, know about the full extent of Dr Kreager's relationship with Dr Thum, or of Dr Thum's role in these documents. There is also no evidence that they have been informed of what actually happened at the Select Committee hearings; the misstatements in these documents suggest that they have not.

This is a serious matter.

15. We must protect our independence and the institution of Parliament. The information now available suggests that there has been a coordinated attempt, with foreign actors involved, to try to influence and subvert our parliamentary processes. This is a serious matter.

16. This matter has arisen on top of the as yet unresolved matter of Dr Thum's precise academic affiliation to Oxford University. As I had indicated in my statement of 17 April 2018, Dr Thum has given himself a bewildering variety of titles in his evidence to the Select

Committee — from "Research Fellow in History" to "visiting professorship in anthropology" — almost all of which turned out to be inaccurate, non-existent or misleading.

Annex A: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.todayonline.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F20180430_dofresponse.pdf