TR EMERITUS

The Prime Minister has announced the commencement of the The Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 on 1st July 2010. The Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 is an amendment to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 2007 Revised Edition). Amendments in particular which may be of interest to would-be voters are highlighted below:   1. Penalty for offences Generally, the penalty (fines) imposed on most offences under the Elections Act have been increased from the original $100 - $500 to $1000 - $1500. Jail term (if applicable) have also been increased and most offences are now a seizable offence within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) - the police can arrest a person on the spot instead of issuing a summons.   2. Allowance for a “cooling off” day Section 34 (6)(d) and 34A (6)(d) of the principal Act have been amended to allow for up to 10 days for poll to be taken instead of the original 9 days - the additional 1 day being the "cooling off" day, ie: eve of poll.   3. Restoration of name to register of electors  The fees for such restoration have been increased from $5 to $50 under Section 43 (8)(a) and (9).   4. Increase in the number of non-constituency Members The number of non-constituency Members to be declared elected shall be the whole number (ignoring any less than 0) ascertained in accordance with the formula 9 – B, where B is the total number of Opposition Members elected to Parliament. It was 3 non-constituency Members prior to the amendment.   5. Badges, symbols, etc., prohibited on polling day and eve of polling day No badge, symbol, rosette, favour, set of colours, flag, advertisement, handbill, placard or poster or any replica of a voting paper shall be worn, used, carried or displayed by any person or on any motorcar, truck or other vehicle as political propaganda on polling day will now include eve of polling day (ie: cooling off day).   6. Repeal and re-enactment of section 78B Section 78B of the principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted therefor: “Election advertising ban” 78B.—(1) Except as otherwise provided by or under subsection (2), no person shall, at any time on polling day or the eve of polling day at an election in an electoral division — (a) knowingly publish, or knowingly cause or permit to be published, any election advertising in or among any electors in the electoral division; or (b) knowingly display, or knowingly cause or permit to be displayed, any election advertising on any vehicle, thing or structure within the electoral division or adjoining the electoral division. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to — (a) the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for not less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be published regardless of whether there was to be an election; (b) the publication of any news relating to an election — (i) in a newspaper in any medium by a person permitted to do so under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206); or (ii) in a radio or television broadcast by a person licensed to do so under the Broadcasting Act (Cap. 28); (c) the telephonic or electronic transmission by an individual to another individual of the first-mentioned individual’s own political views, on a non-commercial basis; (d) any election advertising that was lawfully published or displayed before the start of the eve of polling day at any election on what is commonly known as the Internet and that was not changed after its publication or display; (e) the continued lawful display or posting of posters or banners that have been displayed or posted before the start of the eve of polling day at any election; and (f) such activities or circumstances as may be prescribed by the Minister. (3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction by a District Court to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. (4) Every offence under this section shall be a seizable offence within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68).”.   7. Prohibition of canvassing on polling day and eve of polling day  Section 80 of the principal Act have been amended to prohibit canvassing on the eve of polling day ( cooling off day) and polling day.   8. New section 80A inserted to restrict election meetings  “Restrictions on election meetings” 80A.—(1) Without prejudice to sections 12 and 13 of the Public Order Act 2009 (Act 15 of 2009), and notwithstanding section 14 of that Act, all election meetings, wherever held, are prohibited — (a) in the case of a general election, on polling day and the eve of polling day at the general election; or (b) in the case of a by-election in any electoral division, on polling day and the eve of polling day at the by-election, and notwithstanding section 7 of that Act, no permit shall be granted under Part II of that Act for such an election meeting even if a notice under section 6 of that Act is given in respect of that election meeting. (2) Notwithstanding section 14 of the Public Order Act 2009, an election meeting shall not take place within any public place that is designated as an unrestricted area under that section during any of the following periods: (a) in the case of a general election, between the day of nomination appointed for the general election and the day before the eve of polling day at that general election (both days inclusive); or (b) in the case of a by-election in any electoral division, between the day of nomination appointed for the by-election and the day before the eve of polling day at that by-election (both days inclusive), unless the Commissioner of Police is notified under section 6 of that Act of the intention to hold the election meeting, and a permit is granted under section 7 of that Act in respect of that election meeting; and Part II of that Act shall apply to such an election meeting as if it does not take place within an unrestricted area. (3) Any reference in the Public Order Act 2009 to an assembly or a procession that is unlawful under Part II of that Act shall include a reference to an election meeting — (a) that is held in contravention of subsection (1) or (2); or (b) in the case of an election meeting that takes place in an unrestricted area within the meaning of section 14 of the Public Order Act 2009 — (i) that is held on a date or at a time which differs from the date or time specified in relation to the election meeting in the notice given under section 6 of that Act; or (ii) that is not in compliance with any requirement imposed by section 8(1) of that Act or any condition imposed under section 8(2) of that Act on organisers or persons taking part in that election meeting. (4) In this section, “election meeting” means a public assembly (within the meaning of the Public Order Act 2009) organised by or on behalf of a candidate nominated for election — (a) to promote or procure the electoral success at the election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates; or (b) to otherwise enhance the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates with the electorate in connection with the election.”.   9. Persons prohibited from conducting election activity (Section 83 (1)(A)) Persons prohibited from conducting election activity have been expanded to include: “(1A) An individual who is not a citizen of Singapore shall not knowingly publish or display, or knowingly cause or permit to be published or displayed, any election advertising in or among any electors in an electoral division during the period beginning with the day the writ of election is issued for an election and ending with the start of the eve of polling day at the election.”; A full copy of the The Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2010 can be downloaded from the Official Web Site. In addition, the Prime Minister has appointed Mr Yam Ah Mee to be the Returning Officer, with effect from 1st June 2010.     Andrew Tay Disclaimer: The writer is not legally trained and interpretation may contain unintentional error(s). Readers are encouraged to seek expert  legal advice whenever possible.  Read More →

At a dialogue session organised by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) yesterday, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam claimed that one of the targets of the ESC is to increase the median wages of Singapore worker by one-third from $2,400 today to an inflation-adjusted $3,100 in year 2010. This represents an average real increase of 2.4% per annum over the next 10 years. This seems to represent a deviation from past PAP’s stance whereby the aim of economic policy has been all about pushing high GDP growth with little regard to its distributive effect. As far as economic development is concerned, Singaporeans need to ask themselves the following questions: 1) Whether and how much Singaporeans have benefited from the economic growth, and 2) What is the quality of this growth and whether it is sustainable? It is clear that the average Singaporean is not benefiting from the country’s economic growth due to the very unequal distribution of income. While Singapore has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at $53,143 in 2009, employees receive a disproportionately small share of the GDP. Profits take about 46% of GDP, which is extremely high in comparison with most developed and advanced developing economies. In addition, foreign-owned companies receive almost half of this unusually high profit share. This is exacerbated by the low linkages between the high growth economic sectors and the participation of Singaporean workers in these activities. The government targeted growth in the biomedical and chemicals sectors and in capital market back office processing, but these sectors are dominated by foreigners who also receive most of the benefits. To achieve high GDP growth, the PAP government allowed hordes of cheap foreign workers in to reduce business cost for labour-intensive activities. This kind of economic growth is easy low-hanging fruit, but it is of low quality and is unsustainable. Such growth is not underlined by productivity increases and is derived merely from factor input accumulation. The liberal foreign worker policy has disproportionally hurt Singaporean workers in the low-end jobs most. The wages of the bottom 20-30% Singaporean workers have been depressed and have not improved in real terms in recent years. Stuck in their low wages, they cannot provide their family a decent living, are made to rely on wage subsidies, and can never save enough for their retirement. The Progress Report of the Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers released in June 2009 claimed a nominal increase of 9.2% in the monthly wage of the 20th percentile employed resident from $1,200 in 2006 to $1,310 in 2008. But using the inflation rate of 9.5% experienced by the lowest 20% income group over the two year period, the low wage workers were in fact worse off in real income terms. In addition, the economic growth has been achieved at the expense of huge externalities from overpopulation. Such a huge inflow of people has shown up in surging housing costs, higher inflation, overcrowding in our public transport, and shortage of hospital beds in public hospitals. There was a serious lack of coordination between the National Population Secretariat under DPM Wong Kan Seng, the economic development ministries MOM and MTI, and the social development ministries like MOH, MND and MOT. The use of unskilled foreign workers also hinders technology adoption and lowers the productivity level of the country. One reason for the alarmingly dismal productivity growth numbers is the reluctance on the part of employers to adopt labour-saving technologies because of the continued availability of cheap foreign labour. Rather than investing in workers to increase their productivity, employers resort to the easy way out of hiring more cheap foreign workers. Another cause of the country’s low productivity growth is the constant structural changes taking place in the economy. For instance, our focus in manufacturing moved from traditional industries, to shipbuilding, to hard disk drive assembly, to semiconductor wafer fabrication, to chemicals, and recently to biomedical. This has hindered productivity growth through learning-by-doing - the capability of workers to improve their productivity by learning on the job and improving their work processes over time. As workers are displaced from their industry, productivity gains arising from knowledge deepening in their job or industry is often wasted. Each time the government jump starts a new industry, we start from ground zero again. The use and constant turnover of foreign workers also contributed to the above, as they often do not stay long in their jobs here and the knowledge gained on the job is lost when they leave Singapore. To conclude, we need to think hard about whom all this growth is for. Economic development in Singapore must benefit Singaporeans. It must bring about a better quality of life for the citizens. It pains many informed citizens to see that this expensive and self-praise PAP government has got the orientation of its economic policy so seriously wrong and lacked the foresight to chart out the country’s long term economic strategy. Rather than maximising economic welfare for Singaporeans, this government blindly pursued the misguided goal of chasing after high GDP growth. The pegging of the bonuses for ministers and top civil servants has contributed to this perverse incentive. Much more can and needs to be done to unwind the unforgivable damage that this PAP government has done to the lives of the many ordinary hardworking Singaporeans over the past decade.     Edmund Khor Reference: Manu Bhaskaran's article "Reassessing Singapore’s economic future" published in The Edge Singapore 25 July 2009  Read More →

Dear TR. I was appalled to read about how SINGAPORE Human Resource Institute has named HPB CEO as “Leading CEO”. I had a few classmates who worked in HPB and I must say he is an appalling CEO in terms of HR practices. Since he assumed the role of CEO, the resignations in HPB apparently have been extremely high. Perhaps HPB can provide statistic to show how many of its staff have resigned per quarter or per half year since the current CEO assumed position. Apparently he is someone from Cerobos that sells Chickens Essence and was in charge with marketing. He had no prior experience in health promotion and his only attribute that is associated with healthcare is apparently his degree in pharmacy. There were rumors that the reason he got the job was because the previous CEO was his cousin. From what I know he was not a bad person but was a bad CEO because he relying on others (some heads of divisions and departments) to run the show since he had no domain knowledge. Those who he relied on basically took advantage of the situation and were having a hegemony game. Basically they were doing whatever they wish. Hence they were not treating their staff respectfully. Hiring practices were wierd. They blatantly practised favouritism and bias and this affected performance appraisals and promotions. Hence many staff left in great disgust because of the human resource practices. What is strange is that the current CEO observed this high rate of resignations just like everyone else but since he relied on those selected who was spoiling the show, he was evasive of those pertinent HR issues. However my classmates in other government linked companies, statutory boards etc all tell the same story. Their CEOs are almost all the time someone who has no domain knowledge. When they come into an organisation, their deficiencies often lead to dismal HR standards as the situation is often taken advantage by a handful. This then leads to a high turnover as staff get bullied or treated unfairly and they leave demoralized.     Nicholas Lee In response to: “HPB has leading CEO”  http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_548816.html  Read More →