Current Affairs
Josephine Teo's comment, "milk is milk, however fancy the marketing" irks parents
Ms Josephine Teo, Minister in Prime Minister’s Office & Second Minister for Manpower & Second Minister for Foreign Affairs in her most recent Facebook post shared her views as a mother on the choice of milk powder, stating that “milk is milk, however fancy the marketing.”
Ms Teo’s posting comes following closely after the release of recent report by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) which stated that the increase in prices of milk powder over the past years was likely driven by heavy investment into marketing and research & development activities undertaken by Formula Milk manufacturers to attract parents to purchase their premium products.
Ms Teo shared that she and her husband stressed over which milk powder to get years ago when her kids started to drink formula milk as there were many brands and varying prices.
“But were there significant differences in nutritional value? Did paying more mean helping baby develop better?” were some of the questions that she had.
Ms Teo noted in her post that breastmilk is best and highlighted that both the Health Promotion Board, Singapore and World Health Organization (WHO) encourage mothers to breastfeed for at least 12 months.
At the same time, she also reassured parents who need to supplement their child with formula milk that all brands sold in Singapore, regardless of price, provide enough nutrition for babies to grow healthily. Noting that the child need not rely on milk powder after turning one year old. “Fresh cow’s milk, as part of a balanced diet, works well enough.”
She shared on her personal experience, “For my own journey, I concluded that milk is milk, however fancy the marketing. As long as AVA approves its import, the milk is good enough. I had no reason to pay more and would buy whatever was cheapest or on sale. The kids didn’t always like adjusting but did so anyway. That’s what I found great about kids – they adjust given time and encouragement”
In response to the findings, authorities will restrict formula milk manufacturers from using nutrition and health claims, as well as images that make drinking formula milk look attractive, once changes to Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) regulations take effect. AVA will also also streamline its import regulations in order to facilitate the entry of more suppliers and brands of formula milk, and the changes are expected to be finalised by end-2017.
Minister’s comment misses the point
In hundreds of comments that can be found on Channel News Asia’s Facebook page, readers do not seem to agree with Ms Teo nor think that the Minister has addressed the matter appropriately.
Keith Low wrote, “Totally out of point from the just promoted minister. The issue on hand is why are milk powders sold in Singapore are so much more expensive than other countries. It’s not buying cheap vs expensive formulas. Even our cheapest formulas are also much expensive than the regions.”
David Tan wrote, “To be fair not all expensive brands equates better quality. But I thought the original discussions was why the substantial increase in prices? Why are there no one taking that up? Just beat around the bush and blah blah blah and skip the question. And I also wonder, each time our millionaire ministers says something that sounds absurd, so many netizens will condemn them online but each election we see the same group of ppl being elected. Don’t expect any changes if we do the same thing over and over again.”
John Han wrote, “Please Miss Teo, how long ago u buy milk powder for your kids. Rewind back please. How many choice of milk powder we have back then. The choice were limited. Fast forward now, we have so many brands and choices now. You of course can say ‘I have no reason to pay more and would buy whatever was cheapest or on sale’ analogy… Last time milk powder display (shelves) ‘don’t need a big space’ like now. Last time the shelves need only ‘Small space’ if you know what I meant. Question now is, which department involved in the pricing of the milk powder and other stuffs… same brand same product same manufacture but price differs when you enter different countries for sales..”
Faustina Chay wrote, “Hmm to just buy what ever is on sale / cheaper? Doesn’t it make more sense to buy many cans of formula milk when it’s on offer so u don’t need to keep on changing / checking out what’s on sale every now and then? And I beg to differ that milk is just milk. Even among the different brands of full cream fresh milk , the taste is different. If milk is just milk , why have so many brands? Just 1 will do!
Not the cheapest but the most compatible milk
Parents also chimed in, noting that it is not the choice of parents to make to buy the cheapest milk powder available but also powder that the baby is compatible with.
Masrina Rashid wrote, “She doesn’t even knows what she is saying. What marketing is she referring too? I did not even know the brands of milk available until I looked up in forums myself to find out from other mummies. The only marketing Movements I saw were their presenters passing free gifts and samples at the gynae clinic to pregnant ladies during my checkup. Aiyoh. This is embarrassing. At least before u speaks to the public, go and do ur own research. If u cant do it because u are so busy managing other companies… go and get a good editor. Dont just say it because u assume so.”
Michelle Ho wrote, “I totally agree with some of the comments above, it is not about buying cheap. It is whether the baby is able to take the milk formula. I say that from experience as I had spent a lot of money to change Brand’s to come to the right brand which suits my baby.”
Khan Hong Chiew wrote, “I disagreed with what she said, my daughter was born in Alexandra hospital in 1980 and was given Lactogen milk powder, I continued with it after Mother and child discharged from the hospital, after a few days my daughter got diarrhoea, I shared my daughter’s problem with a friend, he told me that my daughter was allergic to the milk powder and recommended me to change to S26, after a few hours, her diarrhoea stopped, subsequently I chose SMA milk powder for my son and S26 again for my 3rd daughter.”
Rohana Mudzaffar wrote, “Talk nonsense…cofirm not she’s not a responsible Mother. A good parent will buy what is best for her child in terms of dietry needs & child’s well-being – not “buy whatever was cheapest or on sale”. Parents dont chg formula milk depending on sales.. Confirm this one never take care of children..”
Hafeezy Mus wrote, “It was never about the brand or the nutrients it’s all be compatibility. If the kid prefers one kind of milk and it happens to be the expensive kind what could we as parents do. To be honest, if I could give the kid from the get go, I would.”
“Who doesn’t want the best brand?”
A comment which received most attention was a comment from Darren Tan who questioned the Minister’s posting on the matter, asking if the Minister is being hypothetical in what she is saying and what she practice in reality.
Darren Tan wrote, “I have strong doubts on what she said. If that’s the case, why’s she driving a car and living in private property? She has no reason to pay more when she can also get by with public transport and living in public flats like the rest of us. Get real. So what if all milk are the same? Who doesn’t want the best brand? The government has “groomed” Singapore into such a materialistic society (starting from the very top where ministers are paid millions) and now she’s attempting to reverse course?”
Another reader, Amelia Ng wrote to Tan, alleging that he is misinterpreting what the Minister meant. She wrote, “If the formula makes it to the shelves in Singapore, it means that it has passed certain standards and anything else is purely based on the parents’ choice. To be honest, I would go for the cheapest formula if my kids didn’t have eczema. She is lucky that her kids could adjust accordingly. Also, the government did not make Singaporeans materialistic, we are responsible for what we become. The government gets blamed for problems in the education system, housing and now milk powder? We are human and have a brain to think. We have the choice to choose not to conform to the so-called societal standards. No one is asking you to enrol your kids into top schools, buy expensive houses that you can barely pay for , nor the most expensive milk powder that claims to help your child’s brain development. You have a choice!”
In response, Tan wrote, “Amelia, I didn’t misinterpret what she meant. As I said, I understood her point – she is trying to say all milk powder are the same in terms of nutritional value. My point was: so what if they’re all the same? Who doesn’t want to get the best brand for their kids? Moreover, I doubt there can ever be a one-size- fits-all milk powder. As some others mentioned, it also depends on the baby’s digestive system, any allergic reactions, premature baby and so on. I brought in housing because going by her logic, a house is still a house which provides shelter and comfort. Why must she stay in a private house opposed to a HDB flat which most other Singaporeans live in?
And here you are trying to downplay the role of the singaporean government in people’s lives. Have you forgotten what Lee Kuan Yew said before? The Singapore government has to interfere even in the most personal decisions of our lives like where to live! The government has always advocated for people to get the best, be the best. So now – what’s wrong with trying to get the best milk brand?”
Double standards by political leaders
Another comment that received the same level of attention which noted that trend of apparent double standards practiced by Singapore’s political leaders.
Diu Lei wrote,
They tell us Public Transport is good, but they all move around in chauffeured limousine.
They tell us Hawker Food is good, but they all do fine dining.
They tell us Neighbourhood School is good, but their kids all goes to top ranked school.
They tell us Public Hospital is good, but they all goes to private doctors.
They tell us to fight for our lunch, but they keep giving lunch to their own.
They tell us degree is useless, but all the job listing including govt jobs ask for degrees.
They tell us HDB is good and affordable, but they all stays in guarded bungalows.
They tells us $1k is enough to live by, BUT THEY ASK TO BE PAID MILLIONS!
Current Affairs
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.
On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.
Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.
According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.
Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.
He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.
In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:
- Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
- Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
- Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
- How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
- How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?
The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.
Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.
He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.
Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”
He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.
The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.
At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.
Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.
As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.
Comments
Redditors question support for PAP over perceived arrogance and authoritarian attitude
Despite Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s warning that slimmer electoral margins would limit the government’s political space “to do the right things”, many Redditors questioned their support for the ruling PAP, criticising its perceived arrogance. They argued that SM Lee’s remarks show the party has ‘lost its ways’ and acts as if it alone can determine what is right. Others noted that the PAP’s supermajority allows for the passage of unfavourable policies without adequate scrutiny.
In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that “if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.”
Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted the risks associated with increasingly competitive politics.
“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he stated during his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September.
“Singaporeans must understand the dangers this creates, and so must the public service,” SM Lee stressed.
SM Lee pointed out that Singapore faces formidable internal and external challenges in the years ahead, with rising expectations and demands from citizens.
As growth becomes harder to achieve and politics becomes more fiercely contested, he warned, “Things can go wrong for Singapore too.”
He urged vigilance in preparing for an uncertain future, noting, “As the world changes, and as the generations change, we must do our best to renew our system – to ensure that it continues to work well for us, even as things change.”
Critique of PAP’s Arrogance and Disconnect from Singaporeans
The People’s Action Party (PAP) experienced a notable decline in its vote share during the 2020 General Election, securing 61.24% of the votes and winning 83 out of 93 seats, a drop from 69.9% in 2015.
A significant loss was in Sengkang GRC, where the PAP team, led by former Minister Ng Chee Meng, was defeated by the Workers’ Party (WP).
In discussions on Reddit, some users questioned why they should support the ruling PAP, criticising the party’s perceived arrogance.
They pointed out that SM Lee’s recent remarks illustrate that the party has strayed from effectively serving Singaporeans and seems to believe it has the sole authority to decide what is right.
Others highlighted that the PAP’s super-majority in Parliament enables the passage of unfavourable policies without sufficient scrutiny.
One comment acknowledged that while many older Singaporeans remain loyal to the PAP due to its past achievements, younger generations feel the party has failed to deliver similar results.
There is significant frustration that essentials like housing and the cost of living have become less affordable compared to previous generations.
The comment emphasised the importance of the 2011 election results, which they believe compelled the PAP to reassess its policies, especially concerning foreign labor and job security.
He suggested that to retain voter support, the PAP must continue to ensure a good material standard of living.
“Then, I ask you, vote PAP for what? They deserve to lose a supermajority. Or else why would they continue to deliver the same promises they delivered to our parents? What else would get a bunch of clueless bureaucrats to recognise their problems?”
Emphasising Government Accountability to the Public
Another Redditor argued that it is the government’s responsibility to be accountable to the people.
He further challenged SM Lee’s assertion about having less political space to do the right things, questioning his authority to define what is “right” for Singapore.
The comment criticised initiatives like the Founder’s Memorial and the NS Square, suggesting they may serve to boost the egos of a few rather than benefit the broader population. The Redditor also questioned the justification for GST hikes amid rising living costs.
“Policies should always be enacted to the benefit of the people, and it should always be the people who decide what is the best course of action for our country. No one should decide that other than us.”
The comment called for an end to narratives that present the PAP as the only party capable of rescuing Singapore from crises, stating that the country has moved past the existential challenges of its founding era and that innovative ideas can come from beyond a single political party.
Another comment echoed this sentiment, noting that by stating this, SM Lee seemingly expects Singaporeans to accept the PAP’s assumption that they—and by extension, the government and public service—will generally do the “right things.”
“What is conveniently overlooked is that the point of having elections is to have us examine for ourselves if we accept that very premise, and vote accordingly.”
A comment further argued that simply losing a supermajority does not equate to a lack of political space for the government to make the right decisions.
The Redditor express frustration with SM Lee’s rhetoric, suggesting that he is manipulating public perception to justify arbitrary changes to the constitution.
Concerns Over PAP’s Supermajority in Parliament
Another comment pointed out that the PAP’s supermajority in Parliament enables the passage of questionable and controversial policies, bypassing robust debate and discussion.
The comment highlighted the contentious constitutional amendments made in late 2016, which reserved the elected presidency for candidates from a specific racial group if no president from that group had served in the previous five terms.
A comment highlighted the contrast: in the past, the PAP enjoyed a wide electoral margin because citizens believed they governed effectively. Now, the PAP claims that without a substantial electoral margin, they cannot govern well.
-
Comments6 days ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments3 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Crime2 weeks ago
Leaders of Japanese syndicate accused of laundering S$628.7M lived in Singapore
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore6 days ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore7 days ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore4 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore4 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home