DBS Bank services have been experiencing frequent issues lately. Following a large-scale service disruption in March, another disruption occurred today (5th), affecting ATMs, online banking, and other services. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced the implementation of another round of additional capital requirements for DBS Bank later that evening.
MAS stated that the new round of additional capital requirements, combined with the requirements implemented in February of the previous year, means that DBS Bank will need to face a total of approximately SGD 1.6 billion in additional capital requirements.
Since DBS Bank’s services were disrupted in November 2021, MAS had proposed in February 2022 to raise the additional capital requirements to 1.5 times the bank’s operational risk assets. Now, it has been raised to 1.8 times.
In an announcement, MAS said that after the service disruption in March, DBS Bank had established a special committee to review the bank’s information technology. This review was conducted by independent third-party experts.
MAS subsequently instructed the bank to conduct a comprehensive review, including assessing the management of digital banking services, employee capabilities, operational processes, system resilience, and the architectural design of digital banking services. Now, MAS also requires the bank to include today’s service disruption event in the scope of the review.
“MAS also requires DBS Bank to take immediate measures to enhance the resilience and recovery capabilities of the existing system, including strengthening monitoring and more comprehensive testing, to minimize the impact on customer service.”
Ho Hern Shin, Deputy Managing Director (Financial Supervision) of MAS, said in a statement, “DBS Bank has failed to meet the MAS’s expectations for banks to provide reliable services to customers, and causing inconvenience to the public repeatedly is unacceptable.”
“This additional capital requirement highlights the seriousness with which MAS views this issue, and DBS Bank must spare no effort to address the root causes of these disruptions.”
DBS Group CEO Piyush Gupta apologized for the recent digital service disruption events.
“Our customers rightfully have higher expectations of us, and we are committed to doing better. After the event on March 29th, the bank established a special board committee, and independent external experts conducted a comprehensive review of our technological recovery capabilities. We will treat this review as the top priority and promptly implement all recommendations.”
“Populism” became a focus of last week’s parliamentary debate on the government’s policy guidelines, and in a rare move, on the final day of the debate, opposition leader Pritam Khaira Singh agreed with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong that everyone should say no to populism. Clearly, no politician will admit to pursuing a populist path, so we can only listen to their words and observe their actions.
But what is populism? In the context of parliamentary debates, populism is obviously bad and detrimental to the healthy development of democracy, and therefore unanimously rejected. Tracing its roots, it has various definitions. As used in the general news media today, populism refers to politicians who exploit certain issues to incite public sentiment, oppose those in power (the establishment), and the elite class, in order to gain votes. Therefore, former US President Trump and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro, for example, are populist politicians.
What is populism in the context of Singapore’s recent parliamentary debate? In the past, our understanding of the term was straightforward, referring to politicians who propose various voter-pleasing and sensational ideas, such as free education and healthcare, to win votes. This time, Lawrence Wong provided his own clear definition. He said, “Populism is politics that suppresses, conceals, and falls into post-truth, and twists facts for political gain. It falsely claims that complex issues have simple solutions when that is not the case. If populism takes root in Singapore, parties implementing populist policies may gain some short-term benefits, but in the long run, it will cause great harm to Singapore and Singaporeans.”
He went on to say, “As far as the government is concerned, our position is very clear. We reject all forms of populism and uphold honesty and integrity when formulating policies. If the government does not meet these standards, we expect the opposition to point it out. Please do so. You must do so. We expect you to do so. Conversely, if the opposition proposes ideas and policies that we consider populist, we will also point out and emphasize our concerns, as we should. I hope this is our consensus on how to advance Singapore’s political and democratic development.” Pritam Khaira Singh immediately expressed agreement. This is an important reference point for “observing their actions.”
In fact, Lawrence Wong expressed this expectation on the first day of the debate. He hoped that during this debate and for the remainder of the current government’s term, the opposition would propose realistic alternative policy options, rather than opportunistic or populist ideas that slowly erode public trust in the government, and should instead present rigorous alternative guidelines as a potential alternative government.
The so-called gradual erosion of public trust in the government, or “salami slicing” in popular terms, is a powerful political tactic, as it operates in the gray area. It is not easy to label it as populist. For example, if you say that the government should only use half of the net investment income contribution from reserves, and someone else asks why not use 60%, it may be debatable whether this is populist, but it is definitely “salami slicing” and can easily win voters’ hearts. Similarly, if you insist on raising the consumption tax, others may argue for raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations instead, which could also win over some voters.
The most deadly aspect is the amplification effect of social media, which makes “salami slicing” tactics even more potent. Because one person can form a cyber army, stirring up noise for various opposing voices. However, Pritam Khaira Singh did not take the bait to Lawrence Wong’s direct attack but adopted a temporary avoidance strategy, admitting that the Workers’ Party is not yet able to form an
alternative government and expressed the desire to continue learning and growing. He also emphasized that the Workers’ Party’s goal is to provide constructive feedback and to ensure that the government is held accountable.
In this debate, both the government and the opposition agreed to reject populism, emphasizing the need for responsible and honest policy-making. This consensus is crucial for Singapore’s political and democratic development. As citizens, we must not only listen to politicians’ words, but also observe their actions, to ensure that they are adhering to the principles they claim to uphold.
Going forward, it is crucial to maintain a healthy political environment in Singapore, where parties and politicians focus on substantive policy discussions and strive to provide pragmatic solutions to the challenges faced by the nation. In this way, Singapore’s political landscape can continue to mature and evolve, ensuring that the country remains resilient in the face of a rapidly changing global environment.
Recently, a heartbreaking incident occurred at a bus stop on Yio Chu Kang Road, where a woman was attacked by a wild boar late at night while waiting for the bus. The National Parks Board stated that the wild boar involved had broken hind legs and was subsequently euthanized. However, while we sympathize with the victim, we must not overlook a critical question: Are we genuinely protecting wildlife?
As native wildlife in Singapore, wild boars’ living spaces are increasingly being squeezed by urbanization. Human activities are continuously encroaching on their habitats, leading to a reduction in the wild boars’ living areas and an increased likelihood of contact with humans. Under these circumstances, conflicts between wild boars and humans are inevitable.
In the face of such incidents, we should seek a balance that protects both human safety and the welfare of wildlife. Although the wild boar was deemed the aggressor in this case, we must not neglect their rights as living beings. After all, they, too, are striving to adapt to a world shared with humans.
We need to critically examine our efforts in wildlife protection. Merely choosing to “euthanize” after a conflict arises is not a fundamental solution to the problem. We should consider the ecological needs of wildlife in urban planning and provide them with sufficient living spaces. Additionally, we should enhance public education on wildlife protection, raise ecological awareness, and promote harmony between humans and wildlife.
In this incident, while we must be concerned about the victim’s safety, we should also reflect on humanity’s attitude towards and protection measures for wildlife. Let us work together to safeguard the rights and welfare of all living beings on this land and create a harmonious home.
Even as a certified west-sider, I was among those who were sorely disappointed over news of ’s closing. After all, it was a great spot (as long as someone was driving, of course) for those cravings. You can understand my excitement, then, when I heard about ORTO West Coast! It’s not exactly very far-west, either — it’s located just opposite Haw Par Villa MRT station.
Photo: @prawningatorto/instagram
enthusiasts, you can rest assured knowing that the folks behind Prawning at ORTO have relocated to West Coast with the same opening hours — 24 hours daily, so you can head down any time you like. The popular restaurant SGMY has also shifted over, so you’ll find similar homely seafood dishes.
Photo: @prawningatorto/instagram
Don’t feel like eating tze char? Head over to Mo’s Grill & Bar for Asian-inspired dishes — think nachos, spicy korean chicken bites with gochujang mayo, grilled pork belly skewers, and so much more.
Photo: @eatznplayz/instagram
If the name RedDot BrewHouse rings a bell, it’s probably because you’ve seen them around at Dempsey. Fans of their award-winning beer, you’ll be delighted to know that they’ve opened an outlet at ORTO as well — sounds like it’s time to sit back and enjoy a main or two while listening to the live band.
Photo: @reddotbrewhouse/instagram
While BKK Bistro & Bar won’t be coming along (RIP 80 cent boat noodles), you can still enjoy cuisine from Kinn Derm. Whether you’re craving for mookata, or more, this restaurant’s got you covered!
Photo: @kinnderm/instagram
For desserts, head over to Gelato for some thick toast and unique ice cream flavours like Soya Bean Milk ice cream.
Photo: Confirm Good
It’s not all just prawning and eating, either. Patrons can sing at eateries like Volta West, play billiards at West Coast Cue Sports, and even engage in Playstation games at Ignite Spaces — there’s defo no shortage of things to do.
Photo: @ignitespaces_sg/instagram
The place is relatively new at the time of writing, so there are a few restaurants and facilities that have yet to open (hint: frog porridge, mermaid-themed bar & more!) — we’ll update this article with more information when ORTO officially opens.
Perhaps it’s time to make a trip down to the , after all!
ORTO West Coast
📍 27 West Coast Highway, Singapore 117867
Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty or ABSD increases has been described by some media folks as “shocking”!
Others are surprised that buyers are snapping up 75% of units at a recent condo launch, post the ABSD increase announcement.
Wow! What nail biting news!
But hit the pause button, and we find it is not so surprising after all.
First of all, what is clear is that Singaporeans still enjoy zero ABSD for their 1st property (ie the single property that they wish to buy if they do not own any other properties). PRs would pay 5%, no change from before.
The ABSD cooling measure increases target 2nd, 3rd and higher number of residential properties, as well as foreign buyers. Taken together, these constitute some 10% of residential property transactions.
Ah so! 90% of home buyer are buying their one property, mostly for owner occupation. The rare exceptions are when they are posted overseas for instance for jobs etc.
So, the new ABSD increases don’t affect the 99% of home buyers at all.
But, but, but, …, what if we want to upgrade? downgrade? move nearer our parents or children? move nearer school for kids? move nearer our work place? follow our church or temple move? move closer to parks, seaside, MRT station, hawker centre, etc?
Yah, there is also straight forward 2nd point about the ABSD system as a cooling measure.
We can get an ABSD refund if we sell our 1st residential property within 6 months of buying the 2nd property.
After all, the ABSD is meant as a property cooling measure, not intended to prevent home mobility.
So we have 6 months to sell our 1st property, to claim back our ABSD.
What else if we are looking at a 2nd residential property?
Apparently, we don’t need to pay ABSD upfront if we are buying an Executive Condo or EC. We still have 6 months to sell our 1st property to avoid paying the ABSD for the new purchase.
And husband and wife can separately or jointly own 2 properties, on the basis that this is equivalent to one residential property each.
And of course, ABSD only applies to residential properties. There is no ABSD for commercial properties etc.
Plus, there are now over 30+ S-REITs for interested investors to get exposure to various kinds of properties for investment, without having to go buy single chunky assets, which could be hard to dispose when we need to cash.
The S-REITs in this environment yield anywhere from 4% for more conservatively managed portfolios, to over 10% for the higher risk portfolios.
The S-REITs don’t require huge amounts of money to start. And we can buy an ETF on S-REITs too to diversify single S-REIT manager risks.
S-REITs were first conceived and developed as a way for ordinary mom and pop retail and small investors to have digestible access to a chunky asset class of properties. It is a way for folks to invest in a well regulated, relatively stable and easily understood asset in bite sizes of 1000 units.
At the same time, foreign buyers can also have access to a more liquid asset underpinned by an easily understood and well diversified asset like property. In this way, they don’t need to park their emergency savings into a single property, and find it difficult to sell and monetise that one chunky asset precisely during emergencies when markets may dry up.
What else?
Yah, what if we are planning to move but worry about not finding a buyer within the 6 months window?
Not usual, but we can consider doing a sale and leaseback say for 2-3 years, so we have up to 2-3 years of lease post sale to remain in our 1st home, while we hunt for our next dream home.
As Lucy Tan suggested in her comments, perhaps govt could consider extending the sale of 1st property to 9 months instead of 6?
But 6 months may not be too bad, if there is serious effort to sell?
Sometimes, delays in selling may be driven by higher than market expectations? ]
As for paying the ABSD for 2nd, 3rd or more homes, whether for ourselves, our children, etc, think of it this way.
Those who can afford to buy more than one property, would be buying for investment, or as a gift for their children or as a home for their parents.
The ABSD they pay can be considered a donation to government to support various social programmes or public good services including education and defence.
We can kind of think of the ABSD as another layer of wealth tax.
Given that there are many other ways to invest, or create a nest egg for their children or grandchildren, including S-REITs, folks who want to buy additional properties for investment or as future gifts to their children or grandchildren should consider their ABSD as a sharing of their own good fortune, as a payback of their good fortune, as donations for the public good.
And as for foreign buyers, chances of foreigners from far away wanting to buy a home in Sg is small.
But as Asia prospers, and about half of the world population is within 7 hours flight from Sg, we are just too small a place for a massive wave of non Singaporeans or PRs wanting to park their money in a relatively non-productive asset like a residential home.
Overseas folks are most welcome to invest in other productive segments of the economy, with residential properties largely meant to be homes for people to stay as owner occupiers.
Hence, foreign buyers are subject to a hefty ABSD of 60%, doubling the earlier rate of 30%.
This hefty jump must mean that MAS must already be seeing increasing flows into the residential property market post pandemic, and hence, the quick preemptive cooling measure, esp in the light of various macro global trends.
So foreigners still interested in property assets can invest in S-REITs or S-REIT ETFs as an alternative to crowding into the residential home market in tiny Sg
So relax folks, there is really no need to hyperventilate about the latest ABSD increases.
Have a good weekend, and a Happy May Day tomorrow.
