TR EMERITUS

My friend said - Kin Lian, do you know why employers prefer to employ foreigners and not locals? He elaborated. Cost is one factor, but it is not the most important factor. More important is the attitude. You have heard about employers exploiting workers, right? Are you aware that in the real world, many workers exploit their employers? They demand high salaries, collect the salaries, and do not give back to their employers what they take from the employer. They are willing to take advantage of their employer, when the boss is not aware. They wait for instructions and lack initiative to carry out whatever is necessary for the business to survive. They treasure their personal time and freedom and are not willing to sacrifice for their employer. These workers seem to think that it is easy for their boss to run a business. That is why employers do not wish to employ local workers. It is their bad attitude. He told me that he does not wish to generalize and to say that all local workers have bad attitudes. They may be exceptions, but quite few. He has bad experience and wish to avoid employing local workers. They are not reliable. I think that he is referring to the small businesses, who have to struggle very hard. He is not referring to the big companies - which pays well and can command the full loyalty of the workers. I wonder if his observation is fair to local worker?   Tan Kin Lian        Read More →

It was a basic question that took four years to be asked. Had it been asked earlier, it could have saved Parti Liyani from all her troubles and trauma, from languishing in a shelter for four years while awaiting the conclusion of her case of stealing from the home of Liew Mun Leong. Defence lawyer Anil Balchandani who acted pro-bono for Parti and successfully secured her acquittal, appears in a video put up by HOME (Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics), the non-governmental organisation which provided shelter, food and financial assistance to Parti for four years. The video was shot a week before the High Court ruling on 4 September. Balchandani spoke of the breakthrough: “I think the maybe memorable or most lucky point that we had was we asked the (high) court to have all the items presented before it . . . . and the court agreed. And that allowed us to present to the court what you can’t see in pictures.” Once the “stolen” items were presented in court, the effect was telling, said Balchandani: “So the condition of the items, the clothes, the rags, the very old DVD players, the earrings, the jewellery that was outdated – you could see it in a photograph but you will not appreciate it until you see it. And slowly we were, you know, we were able to inch forward. And we have to basically convince the judge, why would someone steal junk?” Indeed, why would anyone go through the trouble of stealing things which even the rag-and-bone man might reject? And why wasn’t it a question the police, prosecution and district judge all thought of asking? Only at the High Court was this question finally addressed. In his lengthy 100-page judgement, Justice Chan Seng Onn pointed to some aspects of this, including the case of a Pioneer DVD player which was allegedly stolen by Parti. She denied the theft, saying it was disposed of by the Liew family because it was “spoilt” and she kept it to bring home to Indonesia for repair. Justice Chan believed Parti: “As its name suggests, a DVD player’s main function is to play a DVD . . . a DVD player that is unable to play DVD can reasonably be described as ‘spoilt.’” The judge applied common sense. As was the case when Parti was accused of stealing clothes belonging to Karl Liew, the son of Liew Mun Leong. This strangely included women’s clothing apparel. When asked at the trial if he “had a habit of wearing women’s clothes” Karl actually said that he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. Justice Chan found this assertion to be “unbelievable”. So the Parti Liyani case is now to be reviewed by multiple parties because something has “gone wrong in the chain of events”, according to Law Minister K Shanmugam. They could start by reviewing why nobody thought of asking the most basic questions – such as why would anybody want to steal junk, and how could a man have clothes “stolen” from him that included women’s apparel.   Augustine Low        Read More →

Do you know S Iswaran was Vice-President and Managing Director at Temasek Holdings from 1998 to 2006 even as a member of parliament? After 2006, he became appointed the Minister of State and then Minister for Trade and Industry and now, the Minister-in-charge of trade relations. This 2020 election, corporate advisor from Temasek Holdings Tan See Leng was also brought into parliament on the back of a GRC. And right after that, he was made a Second Minister in Trade and Industry. Sun Xueling was also a director at Temasek Holdings. Why are people transiting from Temasek Holdings into Singapore's parliament, and then straight into the ministerial roles of trade and industry? In fact, why are Singapore's office holders pooled from such a limited selection of individuals (as the chart in this post shows)? Click to enlarge We've already seen how military officers are parachuted to become ministers or ministers of state in education, manpower, environment and the industry, when they clearly have zero relevant experience. Why are there 4 principal private secretaries of the prime ministers holding ministerial roles and all previously earmarked for prime ministership? Are we choosing prime ministers to lead the country or assistants willing to do the bidding of the current prime minister? Also, why are there so many people related to the Lees in varying capacities also made office holders? (in the chart) Why has Singapore's Cabinet become confined to such a close circle? Singaporeans do not get to choose the prime minister. Even though most Singaporeans favor Tharman, the PAP has still chosen among the former principal private secretaries and military officers to be the next prime minister, when Tharman is clearly the most capable among the whole jin gang - but he is obviously not part of the circle. It is certainly quite unhealthy that the people making decisions for Singapore are beholden to just a small clique of people, no? Should the close ties between Temasek Holdings and the cabinet make one uncomfortable? Yet, why does Temasek continue to operate without full transparency? What good does putting military officers or principal private secretaries, or even people from Temasek Holdings into the Cabinet, do for Singapore? So, more trade agreements can be signed with other countries. Temasek gets richer. But have Singaporeans' wages gotten higher? The people listed in this chart are given ministerial roles in not only trade and industry, but also in finance, manpower and national development. These ministries manage the reserves, CPF and HDB of Singaporeans (of which the CPF is used to fund HDB and land sold as part of HDB is also transferred into the reserves). When there is no full transparency in the decision-making in Singapore, the conflicts of interest that arise therefore become even more worrying. But as long as the PAP is government, Singaporeans are not going to get answers on these issues, because the PAP controls the information that comes out. In fact, S Iswaran is now also made minister of communications and information, and even though the trade and industry portfolio has been given to someone else, he is still in-charge of trade relations. Why? All these musical chair rotations of Singapore's ministerial positions are given without any justification or explanation to Singaporeans. Surely it is worrying, no? Why are people transferred around and around in these top political positions which Singaporeans have to pay for? And yet, does it seem like they are acting in the interests of Singaporeans, this close circle of people? Many of these people in the chart are what PAP refers to as 4G politicians, but they have messed up the #COVID19 management. And yet, they have retained their positions and remain ministers. Lee Hsien Loong calls this the strongest cabinet he can put together. I see this as the weakest cabinet in Singapore's history. Can you honestly tell me any of them can hold a candle to Toh Chin Chye? Under this current PAP, I think Singapore has ventured into dangerous territory. We know the current ministers cannot do their jobs, we have seen how they have performed. And yet, the ministerial positions remain in the hands of a close circle, and we still do not understand how they are being rotated around in their positions, since it is very clear most of them are not put into their positions based on relevant experience or expertise. Does it make you wonder - are they serving Singaporeans or serving themselves? Why then are we paying tens of millions of dollars to them every year? Do you also wonder, how much of our money have they taken to become millionaires or billionaires? When they are clearly not the right people for the job? Meanwhile, cleaners in Singapore earn only S$5 an hour. Something is very wrong here.   Roy Ngerng        Read More →