Source : The Straits Times, Sept 29, 2007
AS SINGAPOREANS begin to live longer and as our society begins to age, there is this fear that this would put a great strain on the taxpayers and other resources.
To alleviate this problem, the conventional thinking is that the aged should have enough money to take care of themselves. Hence, the idea of a compulsory annuity scheme has been mooted where a pooled contribution would allow any survivor beyond 85 years of age to draw out a monthly sum of income.
Though the Government does not believe in giving out handouts because this would mean having to tax the people more, a compulsory annuity or compulsory longevity insurance would actually be doing just that. Once we strip off the veneer of fanciful names, we will see that as long as it is compulsory and non-refundable, such a scheme would, in fact, be a kind of taxation to finance a handout that will be given to those who have managed to live beyond 85 years old.
A scheme like this would have been laudable if it is not so inequitable. Statistics have shown that the poor, the people with chronic illnesses and those in the lower social class and without a family tend to die earlier than those in the higher social class.
This means that such a compulsory annuity scheme, which pays out only to those after the age of 85, would be depending on the poor, the sick and those without longevity genes to support the healthier and better off.
Furthermore, many of those who live beyond 85 are likely to be those who really do not need the 'handouts'.
The problem of a bulging population of dependents is not something new. After World War II, a baby boom did give governments such a headache. The pressure on governments then was even greater, given the depleted resources of a post-war economy. There were no reserves to fall back on.
In Singapore then, the rate of unemployment was high. Half the population was illiterate and there were not enough schools for the young. Living conditions were appalling. In other words, the majority of the population lived in poverty and filth and always under threat of disease and crime.
The government then had to build standpipes for people to have free water to bathe, wash their clothes and cook their food. It had to provide free health care, free mass vaccinations, free mobile X-rays and free hospitalisation for the poor. Money was not only spent on building schools, it was also spent on free milk to nourish the children who were suffering from poor nutrition and free textbooks for those who could not afford them. Cheap housing had to be built to provide decent living quarters for a growing population and recreation facilities for youths to keep them off the streets.
The problem then, if not more, was no less severe than what we will be facing in future. Statistics projected to 2030 showing only four people who are able to support one aged person are often quoted to show the gravity of the future problem. Is this figure any worse than the number of dependents that had to be supported by one provider in the period after the war?
These same baby boomers who had given governments problems when they were growing up are now part of the elderly boomers who are growing old.
What are the issues facing the governments then and now? Is the problem going to be greater in future than then?
In the past, the need for employment, housing, education, health care, utilities, transport and social facilities was urgent. They were all major items. Now the only big-ticket item is health care. There is no reason why with sensible health-care policies, the high cost of health care could not be overcome. In the past, the Maternal and Child Health Clinics and the School Health Clinics provided very good health care to both the growing baby boomers and their mothers. There is no reason why a similar basic health-care system could not be developed to care for the elderly. Good health care does not necessarily mean executive-class health care.
One of the reasons why many elderly boomers do not have enough money for their retirement is that a lot of their savings was eaten away by expensive health care, some of which may merely be adding a bit of quantity to life without giving it any quality.
Thus, the approach that was used to tackle the problems of the baby boomers should be transposed to tackle the problems of the elderly boomers. We cannot expect a paltry monthly annuity payout to do this. There is no way to avoid government interventions, the involvement of the state agencies and society to deal with the problem.
We need to rationalise health care, especially for chronic diseases and end-of-life care, so as not to make health care a burden to the patient, the family or the state. We have to develop greater social support for the elderly. As with child care, we now need government-subsidised day-care centres, nursing homes and community hospitals. We need to introduce parent-care leave and no-pay leave for people who want to take time off to look after an ailing parent. Instead of the Baby Bonus scheme, we can have elderly-parent bonus scheme and exemption of maid levy for the totally-dependent elderly. A similar scheme like health education and home visits that nurses used to do for rural Singapore could be used for home-bound elderly.
A compulsory annuity scheme that is non-refundable is not only inequitable. By implicitly telling the very old that they have to take care of themselves, we are giving out the signal that the old aged no longer need the family and the society to take care of them. What kind of society would we be if families and society try to wash their hands off the old elderly?
There is no reason why we cannot overcome that problem of the elderly boomers if families, society and the Government put their shoulders together against the wheel. Even if some money is spent, it is worth every cent if what we get in the end is a more compassionate and enlightened society.
After all, with all the prosperity generated by the elderly boomers during their prime, whatever programme would merely be a gesture of gratitude from a country to the people who have served it well.
Dr Wong Wee Nam
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Govt Investments De-Linked From CPF Funds
Source : The Straits Times, Sept 29, 2007
IN 'CPF finances: Clarity needed to clear the cloud of confusion' (ST, Sept 20), Ms Chua Mui Hoong questioned whether the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investments. Subsequent Forum letters also raised the matter of how the return on CPF funds is calculated, and what constitutes a fair return.
The interest members receive for their CPF money should reflect what they could earn by investing in the financial markets, in investments which have comparable risk and duration. All CPF balances are guaranteed by the Government and hence free of risk. Hence the Special, Medisave and Retirement Account (SMRA) interest rates will now be pegged to long-term government-bond yields. Furthermore, the first $60,000 of each person's CPF balances, to be held for the long term, will attract an extra 1 percentage point in interest. This means that they will always earn at least 3.5 per cent interest.
No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
The CPF Board invests members' savings in special securities issued by the Government, which pay the CPF Board the same interest rates that its members receive. The Government pools the proceeds from issuing these securities with the rest of its funds, and invests them professionally for long-term returns. This is completely de-linked from the CPF Board and CPF members. Were this not so, CPF members would be exposed to the investment risks and could not receive guaranteed minimum interest rates.
Up to now, both GIC and Temasek Holdings have earned returns that exceeded CPF interest rates, on average over the years. But this does not mean that the Government is making use of the CPF as a 'cheap source of funds', or earning a 'spread at people's expense'.
First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds.
Second, Temasek and GIC achieve higher returns on average only by taking on more investment risks. Hence these returns are volatile - they can be low or even negative in some years. Furthermore, we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. Neither will older members waiting to withdraw their retirement funds.
Third, Singaporeans benefit when GIC and Temasek investments do well. Every year, the Government draws part of these investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The revenue is spent on worthwhile investments and social needs, including subsidies for housing, education and health care. And from time to time, the Government distributes accumulated budget surpluses to citizens through CPF top-ups and other schemes.
The Government does not rule out the possibility of introducing private pension plans for those with balances above $60,000 and a higher capacity to take risk. However, it would be unwise for members with low balances to take excessive risks on their basic retirement savings.
The current arrangement thus enables all CPF members to earn fair and risk-free returns on their retirement savings, while benefiting from the good performance of GIC and Temasek through the annual Budget. This is the right way to help Singaporeans save for their old age, and enjoy peace of mind in their golden years.
Jacqueline Poh (Ms)
Director (Special Duties)
Ministry of Finance
IN 'CPF finances: Clarity needed to clear the cloud of confusion' (ST, Sept 20), Ms Chua Mui Hoong questioned whether the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investments. Subsequent Forum letters also raised the matter of how the return on CPF funds is calculated, and what constitutes a fair return.
The interest members receive for their CPF money should reflect what they could earn by investing in the financial markets, in investments which have comparable risk and duration. All CPF balances are guaranteed by the Government and hence free of risk. Hence the Special, Medisave and Retirement Account (SMRA) interest rates will now be pegged to long-term government-bond yields. Furthermore, the first $60,000 of each person's CPF balances, to be held for the long term, will attract an extra 1 percentage point in interest. This means that they will always earn at least 3.5 per cent interest.
No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
The CPF Board invests members' savings in special securities issued by the Government, which pay the CPF Board the same interest rates that its members receive. The Government pools the proceeds from issuing these securities with the rest of its funds, and invests them professionally for long-term returns. This is completely de-linked from the CPF Board and CPF members. Were this not so, CPF members would be exposed to the investment risks and could not receive guaranteed minimum interest rates.
Up to now, both GIC and Temasek Holdings have earned returns that exceeded CPF interest rates, on average over the years. But this does not mean that the Government is making use of the CPF as a 'cheap source of funds', or earning a 'spread at people's expense'.
First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds.
Second, Temasek and GIC achieve higher returns on average only by taking on more investment risks. Hence these returns are volatile - they can be low or even negative in some years. Furthermore, we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. Neither will older members waiting to withdraw their retirement funds.
Third, Singaporeans benefit when GIC and Temasek investments do well. Every year, the Government draws part of these investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The revenue is spent on worthwhile investments and social needs, including subsidies for housing, education and health care. And from time to time, the Government distributes accumulated budget surpluses to citizens through CPF top-ups and other schemes.
The Government does not rule out the possibility of introducing private pension plans for those with balances above $60,000 and a higher capacity to take risk. However, it would be unwise for members with low balances to take excessive risks on their basic retirement savings.
The current arrangement thus enables all CPF members to earn fair and risk-free returns on their retirement savings, while benefiting from the good performance of GIC and Temasek through the annual Budget. This is the right way to help Singaporeans save for their old age, and enjoy peace of mind in their golden years.
Jacqueline Poh (Ms)
Director (Special Duties)
Ministry of Finance
F1 Street Race - 1 Year & Counting...
Source : The Straits Times, Sept 29, 2007
With exactly one year to go for the Singapore Grand Prix, preparations for the F1 race has shifted into a higher gear as the world motorsport body, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), has given the street circuit the go ahead.
But as Jermyn Chow reports, local race promoters are still awaiting confirmation as to whether it can stage a night race - a first in F1 history
Related Video Link - http://tinyurl.com/3xum55
F1 Street Race - 1 Year & Counting...
Related Video Link - http://tinyurl.com/33hrlq
Drive through S'pore F1 circuit in 3D!
With exactly one year to go for the Singapore Grand Prix, preparations for the F1 race has shifted into a higher gear as the world motorsport body, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), has given the street circuit the go ahead.
But as Jermyn Chow reports, local race promoters are still awaiting confirmation as to whether it can stage a night race - a first in F1 history
Related Video Link - http://tinyurl.com/3xum55F1 Street Race - 1 Year & Counting...
Related Video Link - http://tinyurl.com/33hrlqDrive through S'pore F1 circuit in 3D!
CPF Changes A Fair Deal, So Why The Hesitation?
Source : The Straits Times, Sept 29, 2007
ACCORDING to a certain fortune teller, I will live to 103.
That's the age an online longevity test, www.poodwaddle.com/realage.swf, spat out after quizzing me on my medical history and lifestyle.
That would mean I have over 61 years left. Despite the stories of contented centenarians one sometimes reads, I confess the prospect filled me with dry-throat dread.
My sense of trepidation was so overwhelming, I momentarily entertained thoughts of picking up smoking so the computer would shave a few decades off my life expectancy.
Like many other Singaporeans, my unwillingness to contemplate old age is connected to fears about what my health will be like, how to deal with loneliness that will envelop me if my loved ones die first, and how to cope financially.
The announcement of the latest changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) ran up against a natural resistance to confronting such difficult facts. The Government's announcements were as welcome as someone forcing you to stare into a photograph that has caught you with a particularly unflattering expression.
The instinct is to deny the person in the image represents you.
Similarly, many do not want to connect with the picture the Government is presenting, of people who will grow old and who risk real suffering unless they are forced to start saving more now.
People have been reluctant to embrace the obvious. The facts are that many will live longer than their parents did, with fewer young people to support them.
The other set of facts has to do with just how much savings people have put aside in their CPF. In a recent Straits Times Insight survey, seven in 10 said they knew their CPF would be inadequate for retirement. They also listed as other options for financial independence - continuing work, tapping on other savings or their family.
Judging by this survey, certain realities have actually sunk in. Singaporeans know they do not have enough for old age. Whatever they have set aside has, for the most part, gone into their home, not an inconsiderable asset they can monetise later.
So why has the debate witnessed an undercurrent of tension between Government and people?
Some attribute the unhappiness to the longevity insurance. If that is so, one suspects it is over the modification of the CPF system from one of forced savings to incorporate the element of risk pooling.
When it is forced savings, the understanding is, it is my money and it will be returned to me or my beneficiary.
When it becomes an annuity that premises its continued funding on risk pooling, I am contributing to a pool. Yes, I am betting on a long life and someone else underwriting it but I do not like the fact that if I exit too early, I 'lose'.
But the extra one percentage point members will get from their CPF balances will pay for the annuity, as the Government has explained. Hence, they will not be out of pocket by taking up an annuity.
Seen that way, it is a pretty fair deal.
However, what complicates the matter is the other issue being debated, which is whether the Government ought to give better rates of returns.
Why can't it match the returns made by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings, which invest on its behalf?
The reasons it has given are compelling. First, this is as good as it gets for a product that is virtually guaranteed. Put simply, for the majority of CPF account holders - seven in 10 of them who have balances of less than $60,000 and stand to gain the most from the changes - this is a sure-win proposition.
It must be flattering to GIC fund managers to hear that Singaporeans have such confidence in their abilities, but as the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
GIC investments certainly seem like a good bet, but they are not guaranteed, and it would be irresponsible of the Government to claim it was.
Second, exposing CPF members to higher risks may not be something they can live with. The ST Insight survey found that nearly half of those polled did not know how much interest they earned on their CPF.
That surely is an indication that many are not financially savvy and would probably be better off leaving it under a risk-free, guaranteed scheme.
Indeed, most of those polled were largely risk-averse. Asked about investment choices, close to four in five would opt to invest their CPF Ordinary Account savings in those with no or low risk.
Beyond these reasons, there are two lessons from other countries worth paying heed to.
One is that pension funds by companies are untenable and national pension funds are in a fiscally calamitous state. In the United States, for example, the social security system has gone from a worker-to-retiree ratio of 16 to one in 1950, to three to one today, and is expected to be at two to one by 2030, at which point spending on old-age entitlements will make up two-thirds of the federal budget.
Italy is faring even worse, with a mere 0.7 worker for each retiree, which means there are more people collecting benefits than paying taxes.
The second lesson is this: Financial strategists in the West have come to the conclusion that with longer life expectancies, annuities to hedge against longevity make sense. The latest issue of the magazine, Financial Planning, makes this case that the elderly should have 'at least some fraction of their nest egg' annuitised.
Perhaps, these concerns over longevity insurance and interest rates hark to a larger underlying issue, which is over the question of subsidies and just how much direct subsidy the Government is prepared to commit upfront to fund the people's retirement needs.
It is ideologically opposed to the pay-as-you-go system of other social security funds, which end up burdening future generations. It is also against dipping into past reserves.
As of now, it says these are non-negotiable issues. But the pressures it will face on this front will only grow and the hard reality is that it will need to continually explain and defend its position to new generations of retirees.
As Second Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam set out on the previous page, there is a chunk of assistance given over the course of a low-income worker's life through Workfare, housing grants and so forth, that amount to one-third of his retirement savings.
Another step the Government is taking is in the redefining of net investment income or NII, which will unlock more money than is traditionally put away. This, if anything, signals that it is putting its money where its mouth is.
It is unfortunate that the Government's sincerity is sometimes obscured by its zealous emphasis of the anti-welfare, self-reliance message, as well as the coincidence that its biggest give-aways seem serendipitously to match the electoral calendar. As a result, the level of trust in the latest moves is surprisingly low for a Government with such a strong record.
All in, it has its work cut out for it. Singaporeans will probably take longer to be convinced, which is a pity.
The sooner the country hunkers down to map a realistic strategy for its ageing population, the better off it will be.
And that should be obvious even without the aid of a fortune teller.
ACCORDING to a certain fortune teller, I will live to 103.
That's the age an online longevity test, www.poodwaddle.com/realage.swf, spat out after quizzing me on my medical history and lifestyle.
That would mean I have over 61 years left. Despite the stories of contented centenarians one sometimes reads, I confess the prospect filled me with dry-throat dread.
My sense of trepidation was so overwhelming, I momentarily entertained thoughts of picking up smoking so the computer would shave a few decades off my life expectancy.
Like many other Singaporeans, my unwillingness to contemplate old age is connected to fears about what my health will be like, how to deal with loneliness that will envelop me if my loved ones die first, and how to cope financially.
The announcement of the latest changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) ran up against a natural resistance to confronting such difficult facts. The Government's announcements were as welcome as someone forcing you to stare into a photograph that has caught you with a particularly unflattering expression.
The instinct is to deny the person in the image represents you.
Similarly, many do not want to connect with the picture the Government is presenting, of people who will grow old and who risk real suffering unless they are forced to start saving more now.
People have been reluctant to embrace the obvious. The facts are that many will live longer than their parents did, with fewer young people to support them.
The other set of facts has to do with just how much savings people have put aside in their CPF. In a recent Straits Times Insight survey, seven in 10 said they knew their CPF would be inadequate for retirement. They also listed as other options for financial independence - continuing work, tapping on other savings or their family.
Judging by this survey, certain realities have actually sunk in. Singaporeans know they do not have enough for old age. Whatever they have set aside has, for the most part, gone into their home, not an inconsiderable asset they can monetise later.
So why has the debate witnessed an undercurrent of tension between Government and people?
Some attribute the unhappiness to the longevity insurance. If that is so, one suspects it is over the modification of the CPF system from one of forced savings to incorporate the element of risk pooling.
When it is forced savings, the understanding is, it is my money and it will be returned to me or my beneficiary.
When it becomes an annuity that premises its continued funding on risk pooling, I am contributing to a pool. Yes, I am betting on a long life and someone else underwriting it but I do not like the fact that if I exit too early, I 'lose'.
But the extra one percentage point members will get from their CPF balances will pay for the annuity, as the Government has explained. Hence, they will not be out of pocket by taking up an annuity.
Seen that way, it is a pretty fair deal.
However, what complicates the matter is the other issue being debated, which is whether the Government ought to give better rates of returns.
Why can't it match the returns made by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings, which invest on its behalf?
The reasons it has given are compelling. First, this is as good as it gets for a product that is virtually guaranteed. Put simply, for the majority of CPF account holders - seven in 10 of them who have balances of less than $60,000 and stand to gain the most from the changes - this is a sure-win proposition.
It must be flattering to GIC fund managers to hear that Singaporeans have such confidence in their abilities, but as the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
GIC investments certainly seem like a good bet, but they are not guaranteed, and it would be irresponsible of the Government to claim it was.
Second, exposing CPF members to higher risks may not be something they can live with. The ST Insight survey found that nearly half of those polled did not know how much interest they earned on their CPF.
That surely is an indication that many are not financially savvy and would probably be better off leaving it under a risk-free, guaranteed scheme.
Indeed, most of those polled were largely risk-averse. Asked about investment choices, close to four in five would opt to invest their CPF Ordinary Account savings in those with no or low risk.
Beyond these reasons, there are two lessons from other countries worth paying heed to.
One is that pension funds by companies are untenable and national pension funds are in a fiscally calamitous state. In the United States, for example, the social security system has gone from a worker-to-retiree ratio of 16 to one in 1950, to three to one today, and is expected to be at two to one by 2030, at which point spending on old-age entitlements will make up two-thirds of the federal budget.
Italy is faring even worse, with a mere 0.7 worker for each retiree, which means there are more people collecting benefits than paying taxes.
The second lesson is this: Financial strategists in the West have come to the conclusion that with longer life expectancies, annuities to hedge against longevity make sense. The latest issue of the magazine, Financial Planning, makes this case that the elderly should have 'at least some fraction of their nest egg' annuitised.
Perhaps, these concerns over longevity insurance and interest rates hark to a larger underlying issue, which is over the question of subsidies and just how much direct subsidy the Government is prepared to commit upfront to fund the people's retirement needs.
It is ideologically opposed to the pay-as-you-go system of other social security funds, which end up burdening future generations. It is also against dipping into past reserves.
As of now, it says these are non-negotiable issues. But the pressures it will face on this front will only grow and the hard reality is that it will need to continually explain and defend its position to new generations of retirees.
As Second Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam set out on the previous page, there is a chunk of assistance given over the course of a low-income worker's life through Workfare, housing grants and so forth, that amount to one-third of his retirement savings.
Another step the Government is taking is in the redefining of net investment income or NII, which will unlock more money than is traditionally put away. This, if anything, signals that it is putting its money where its mouth is.
It is unfortunate that the Government's sincerity is sometimes obscured by its zealous emphasis of the anti-welfare, self-reliance message, as well as the coincidence that its biggest give-aways seem serendipitously to match the electoral calendar. As a result, the level of trust in the latest moves is surprisingly low for a Government with such a strong record.
All in, it has its work cut out for it. Singaporeans will probably take longer to be convinced, which is a pity.
The sooner the country hunkers down to map a realistic strategy for its ageing population, the better off it will be.
And that should be obvious even without the aid of a fortune teller.
It'll Bring A Buzz To The Bay Area
Source : The New Paper, September 29, 2007
Ex-STB director joins property developer to jazz up Collyer Quay waterfront
SHE is a familiar face on the party circuit and society magazines and can sometimes be spotted spinning downtempo music or singing jazz numbers at the nightspots.
The double-storey Customs House will be equipped with berthing facilities and will be transformed into a dining zone with five upscale restaurants.
Now, Ms Sulian Tan-Wijaya, 42, is the face of The Fullerton Heritage, a strip of waterfront properties that will feature hip entertainment outlets and more.
This month, she joined property developer Sino Group after a 3 1/2-year stint with the Singapore Tourism Board (STB).
'I was enticed by the opportunity to work on this beautiful waterfront project. This is one of the most exciting integrated waterfront developments in the world,' she told The New Paper.
Next September, when the Formula1 race cars roar to life on the streets, the race will also take you past a different landscape along Raffles Quay.
The tranquil waterfront will be transformed into an exciting lifestyle precinct in the next two years.
There will be a 24-hour entertainment zone, a new luxury retail cluster, a 100-room boutique hotel and world-class restaurants located along The Fullerton Heritage.
Ms Tan-Wijaya, who is a mother of two, added that One Fullerton, a two-storey complex by the waterfront, is now undergoing a revamp, with trendier food and beverage (F&B) and entertainment outlets coming up.
The renovation at One Fullerton is in various phases as there are existing F&B tenants whose lease will expire next year.
Each unit at One Fullerton ranges from 417 sq ft to 5,420 sq ft.
To enhance the waterfront experience, a boardwalk featuring art installations will also be built there.
One Fullerton's revamp will be completed next August, together with Clifford Pier.
The pier, a historical landmark with 15,000 sq ft of commercial space, will house eight upscale watch, fashion and jewellery brand-name shops.
Next to it will be a floating platform that will house a nightspot, taking up to 7,000 sq ft.
In 2009, another two projects will be realised: The 100-room Fullerton Bay Hotel, managed by the Fullerton Hotels & Resorts, and the double-storey Customs House that will be transformed into a dining zone with five upscale restaurants.
The Customs House will be equipped with berthing facilities.
Ms Tan-Wijaya, who has a law degree, looks after the marketing, public relations and leasing of retail, dining and entertainment spaces at The Fullerton Heritage, which also covers The Merlion Park and The Fullerton Waterboat House.
(Above) An artist's impression of how the new Fullerton Heritage will look like once construction is completed. -- Pictures: SINO GROUP, CHOO CHWEE HUA
The former corporate banker and general manager of Wisma Atria would not reveal the development cost.
Well-known waterfront destinations around the world include Sydney's Darling Harbour and the Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
For The Fullerton Heritage, Ms Tan-Wijaya said to picture yourself dining while overlooking such Singapore icons as The Esplanade, the floating stadium, the Singapore Flyer, Garden by the Bay, and the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort.
An Urban Redevelopment Authority spokesman said the waterfront heritage development at Collyer Quay, which includes Clifford Pier and the Customs House, is expected to be 'the cosmopolitan centre of Singapore'.
FORMULA 1 BUZZ
The Formula 1 Grand Prix from next year will also benefit nearby hotels like The Fullerton Hotel and Fullerton Bay Hotel.
Ms Caroline Leong, STB's director for travel & hospitality business, told The New Paper that the new Fullerton Bay Hotel will inject 'new buzz' in the Marina Bay area.
'With the Formula 1 circuit near The Fullerton Hotel as well as the new hotel at Collyer Quay, these will be key hotels for tourists to stay,' she said.
But whether we will see Ms Tan-Wijaya behind the DJ decks at the waterfront bars, well, she's keeping mum.
Ex-STB director joins property developer to jazz up Collyer Quay waterfront
SHE is a familiar face on the party circuit and society magazines and can sometimes be spotted spinning downtempo music or singing jazz numbers at the nightspots.
The double-storey Customs House will be equipped with berthing facilities and will be transformed into a dining zone with five upscale restaurants.Now, Ms Sulian Tan-Wijaya, 42, is the face of The Fullerton Heritage, a strip of waterfront properties that will feature hip entertainment outlets and more.
This month, she joined property developer Sino Group after a 3 1/2-year stint with the Singapore Tourism Board (STB).
'I was enticed by the opportunity to work on this beautiful waterfront project. This is one of the most exciting integrated waterfront developments in the world,' she told The New Paper.
Next September, when the Formula1 race cars roar to life on the streets, the race will also take you past a different landscape along Raffles Quay.
The tranquil waterfront will be transformed into an exciting lifestyle precinct in the next two years.
There will be a 24-hour entertainment zone, a new luxury retail cluster, a 100-room boutique hotel and world-class restaurants located along The Fullerton Heritage.
Ms Tan-Wijaya, who is a mother of two, added that One Fullerton, a two-storey complex by the waterfront, is now undergoing a revamp, with trendier food and beverage (F&B) and entertainment outlets coming up.
The renovation at One Fullerton is in various phases as there are existing F&B tenants whose lease will expire next year.
Each unit at One Fullerton ranges from 417 sq ft to 5,420 sq ft.To enhance the waterfront experience, a boardwalk featuring art installations will also be built there.
One Fullerton's revamp will be completed next August, together with Clifford Pier.
The pier, a historical landmark with 15,000 sq ft of commercial space, will house eight upscale watch, fashion and jewellery brand-name shops.
Next to it will be a floating platform that will house a nightspot, taking up to 7,000 sq ft.
In 2009, another two projects will be realised: The 100-room Fullerton Bay Hotel, managed by the Fullerton Hotels & Resorts, and the double-storey Customs House that will be transformed into a dining zone with five upscale restaurants.
The Customs House will be equipped with berthing facilities.
Ms Tan-Wijaya, who has a law degree, looks after the marketing, public relations and leasing of retail, dining and entertainment spaces at The Fullerton Heritage, which also covers The Merlion Park and The Fullerton Waterboat House.
(Above) An artist's impression of how the new Fullerton Heritage will look like once construction is completed. -- Pictures: SINO GROUP, CHOO CHWEE HUA
The former corporate banker and general manager of Wisma Atria would not reveal the development cost.
Well-known waterfront destinations around the world include Sydney's Darling Harbour and the Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
For The Fullerton Heritage, Ms Tan-Wijaya said to picture yourself dining while overlooking such Singapore icons as The Esplanade, the floating stadium, the Singapore Flyer, Garden by the Bay, and the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort.
An Urban Redevelopment Authority spokesman said the waterfront heritage development at Collyer Quay, which includes Clifford Pier and the Customs House, is expected to be 'the cosmopolitan centre of Singapore'.
FORMULA 1 BUZZ
The Formula 1 Grand Prix from next year will also benefit nearby hotels like The Fullerton Hotel and Fullerton Bay Hotel.
Ms Caroline Leong, STB's director for travel & hospitality business, told The New Paper that the new Fullerton Bay Hotel will inject 'new buzz' in the Marina Bay area.
'With the Formula 1 circuit near The Fullerton Hotel as well as the new hotel at Collyer Quay, these will be key hotels for tourists to stay,' she said.
But whether we will see Ms Tan-Wijaya behind the DJ decks at the waterfront bars, well, she's keeping mum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
