TR EMERITUS

Singapore's multi-millionaire PAP ministers, who are already the highest paid political leaders in the world, can expect a massive pay rise at the end of the year on the back of a strong economy. The Ministry of Finance upgraded its 2010 economic forecast today to an unbelievable 13 to 15 percent. An unknown percentage of the pay of PAP ministers is pegged to GDP growth - the higher the growth figures, the more money they bring home. The economic forecast at the beginning of the year is between 4 to 6 percent. Then TODAY reported that PAP ministers can expect to receive a hefty 8.8 percent pay hike in 2010. Since the growth rates have more than doubled now, PAP ministers can expect a windfall at the end of the year. Though the figures have been impressive, the gains from Singapore's economic growth have yet to filtered down to the ordinary Singaporeans in the street. The median monthly salary of the average Singapore worker has remained stagnant at $2,400 due to the relentless influx of cheap foreign workers while the cost of living, especially that of public housing has ballooned. With the elections around the corner, the state media has been churning out propaganda daily to paint a rosy picture on the ground. Unfortunately, with Europe heading into a crisis now, Singapore's economic "revival" may be short-lived and we may be in for a double-dip recession pretty soon after the PAP ministers take home their "Ang Pow" money from Singaporeans of course.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

Let us cross-examined CNA’s quote of fare change justification. “Under the new system, about two-thirds of commuters will pay less. Those who make single or short trips may lose out. The new calculation method removes the “transfer penalty”, which is the amount commuters pay each time they make transfers during a single journey. The authorities have said the aim is to provide for a fairer way of calculating fares.” http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1068811/1/.html It says only about one-third of the customers pay more since two-thirds are allegedly paying less – was this a train ACCIDENT or was it a planned outcome. If it was a planned outcome, why did they as a listed business expended so much effort and how did they planned for a revenue loss for so much efforts expended on discovery how to help the customers save fare. SMRT must be an ardent “charity” organisation to have planned so hard for this outcome which angered commuters – LOSE LOSE OUTCOME FOR CUSTOMERS AND SMRT unless customers are the only ones in the blind. But look at this comment – it is PROFUNDITY TO ME at casual read -”Those who make single or short trips may lose out”. The logic is perverse of my comprehension. Short trips customers lose out is probably something which SMRT is aware of its intended outcome in this changed fare structure. But “single trips” include BOTH SHORT TRIPS AND LONG TRIPS. That comment is carefully silent on single trips include long trips – it was a void of leaving angry customers to fill in the blank of truth or falsehood of incomplete public declaration. So did long trips (single also) lose out as well in tuth known to SMRT? Or they don’t know and yet claims that more 2/3 of the customers pay less??. Given the long trips available on a single track, let say from Sengkang to Harbourfront and Jurong West line – who needs to make a lot of short trips to reach destinations when we can switch at interchange without SMRT knowing? The reasonable conclusion available is that LONG TRIPS ALSO PAYS MORE. So how did LHH concludes that two-thirds are paying LESS????? I failed my maths and also failed my kindergarten leaving examination. Please forgive my poverty of intellect and profound stupidity if I am wrong here. Can someone explains the seemingly SELF-CONTRADICTION LOGIC IN CNA’S QUOTE OF “Those who make single or short trips may lose out”???? The logic and the maths don’t add up. My thoughts are that it could be “long trips and short trips all pay more” and the extrapolation is that more than two-thirds of the customers pay a lot more and a few of the remaining pay less. The logic of the CNA quote left me to puzzle if the order is muddled up into chaos leaving the truth to be then conveniently “explained otherwise” contrary of factual reality in the momentary confusion of public mind. UNLESS OF COURSE, SMRT DECIDED THAT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE FAME “CHEAPER,FASTER AND BETTER” MANTRA. Given the overcrowding and the need to invest in technology upgrade and adding more carriage, SMRT might actually need less money and less fare from its customers to “improve” that service in the cover “long-term” consideration as a public charity???. I am still WONDERING in deep silly thoughts.   Jane Doe     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

By Regina Leung from South China Morning Post Over a hundred protesters outside the Legislative Council called for a minimum wage law on Wednesday as lawmakers debated the controversial issue that has divided the city's business sector and labour groups. The protesters, many of whom were low-paid workers, said the government and business sector had sacrificed them in the name of competitiveness and preserving the city’s free economy. Among the various groups protesting outside Legco were a group of Filipino and Indonesian domestic workers who chanted “We are workers! We are not slaves!: “Ironically, Hong Kong is now discussing the road to democracy. But how can there be democracy if workers’ interests continue to be attacked by the big businesses?” said Eni Lestari, of the Asian Migrants’ Co-ordinating Body. Legislators intend to propose at least 11 amendments to the bill, and the debate is expected to last for at least two days. Before the debate started, some pan-democratic lawmakers waved placards and football shirts bearing the number 33. This was to emphasise that they want the minimum wage set at HK$33 an hour. However, lawmakers will not set an exact wage. The will be done by the 12 members of Provisional Minimum Wage Commission who are advising the chief executive on the issue. Lawmaker and general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions Lee Cheuk-yan said the wage should be set at HK$33 an hour to give workers “dignity”. “So, when they return home after work, they have sufficient money to raise their families,” he said. Lee also said salary levels should be reviewed every year – instead of the government’s plan to review them every two years. “Even civil servants’ pay is reviewed every year. There is inflation every year,” Lee told local radio. But Albert Lai, chairman of the pressure group Professional Commons, proposed setting the minimum wage at about HK$30 an hour. He said setting it at this level would not affect the economic competitiveness of Hong Kong. “Only two trades – the security services and cleaning services – would have their profit margins affected [by a minimum wage]. And they are in a good position to raise their prices,” he added. The proposed minimum wage legislation faces strong opposition from some of Hong Kong’s largest employers. Michael Chan, chairman of giant fast-food chain Café de Coral – who was ranked by Forbes magazine as the 35th richest man in Hong Kong in 2009 – has said his group may issue a profit warning if the minimum-wage level is set at HK$33 an hour. Chan’s comments have angered unions, which have demanded he no longer serve on the Provisional Minimum Wage Commission. A survey released this week showed that supermarket giants ParknShop and Wellcome, and convenience stores Circle K and 7-Eleven, pay their workers an average rate of less than HK$23 an hour.  Read More →