TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent During his speech on the Budget, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam repeated the circular argument mentioned earlier by other PAP ministers like PM Lee Hsien Loong that foreign workers are needed in sectors shunned by Singaporeans: “If we had not brought them in, we would not have been able to ease the supply bottlenecks in the private property markets, build HDB flats, or expand our MRT network,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. If this is really so, then why are foreigners being preferred over locals in jobs which can otherwise be taken up by them as shown by the job ad below posted on a Singapore job portal: Customer Service Assistant is an office job which Singaporeans will not shun. The pay and working hours offered by the above company at Ubi are quite reasonable and it should have not difficulties getting Singapore workers, however it is clearly indicated that ONLY Filipino need apply. Do Filipinos possess certain special skills which Singaporeans lack? What does the company need a Filipino specifically to as customer service assistants? The mainstream media kept portraying Singapore workers as being choosy about jobs such that employers have no choice but to turn to foreign workers, but the reality is that Singaporeans are being shut out of many jobs they will have no qualms doing. Singapore's labor policies are incredibly lax and allow companies to employ as many foreign workers as possible so long the dependency ratio of local to foreign workers is met. However, as "local" consists of both citizens and PRs, the rule can be easily circumvented by getting earlier arrivals to apply for Singapore PR. Obtaining Singapore PR is also amazingly easy and lax by any standards as there is no minimum period of residency needed. For example, the Professionals/Technical Personnel & Skilled Worker scheme (or simply PTS scheme) is the easiest and most assured route to Singapore PR. It’s estimated that more than 90% of the people obtain their Singapore Permanent Residence through this scheme, many of which are approved in less than a year. The key requirement under this scheme is that a foreign worker must be working in Singapore for at least six months on either an Employment Pass, Entrepreneur Pass, or S Pass. [Source: Guide me Singapore] The company above is likely to help its Filipino Customer Service Assistant apply for a PR which will free up another slot for a foreign worker. Therefore it is thereotically possible for companies to have 100% foreigners and 0% Singaporeans on its payroll! It is quite obvious from the recent "parliamentary debates" on the Budget that the PAP is either still clueless on what is happening on the ground or is acting blur to cover up its atrocious mistakes. Had the above advertisement been posted elsewhere, it would have sparked a massive public outcry with the government being forced to take action against the errant company. Singapore employers have the audacity to discriminate against Singaporeans precisely because they know they have the tacit support of the pro-foreigner PAP government. Unless Singaporeans send a strong message to the PAP in the next election, they will always be powerless second class citizens in their own country.  Read More →

By Richard Lu In liberal democracies, citizens are mandated to obey the rule of law.  It stands to reason that the independence of the judiciary is not only an important part of a liberal democracy, but some might suggest it is essential.   To understand why an independent judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy we must briefly acknowledge what a liberal democracy is.  A liberal democracy, at its purest, is a democratic government that seeks to represent the will of the people through the entrenchment and protection of individual rights and freedoms.  It is of the utmost importance to maintain independence of the judiciary in order to prevent the possibility of undue influence exerted by other governmental agencies on the courts.   Within the Singapore Constitution are the essentials for a liberal democratic system including the rights and freedoms and the powers of Government and its commitment to the rule of law.  The rule of law applies not only to the people, but also to the government.   We have chosen to protect the ability for the judiciary to maintain the rule of law, independent of undue external influence, and thereby protect some of the core aspects of our liberal democratic framework.   The Singapore Judiciary   The full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the Constitution of Singapore.   ·         The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.  The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction. ·         The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister. ·         The Prime Minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the Judges. ·        Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding precedent upon courts of equal or lower status within their jurisdiction. ·         The President has the power to grant pardons on the advice of the cabinet. Recent milestones   ·         Jury trials were abolished in 1969; ·         The Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 1992 to allow for trials of capital offences to be heard before a single judge;. ·         In 1986 the Legal Profession Act was amended to only allow the Law Society to speak on legal issues upon request by the Government; and·         The Court of Appeal is Singapore's final court of appeal after the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London was abolished in April 1994. Judicial independence in Singapore - recent comments* In 2004, the US Department of State claimed that: ·        Although Singapore's judicial system provides citizens with an efficient judicial process, the judiciary is largely compliant and the Government often uses defamation suits or the threat of such actions to discourage public criticism and intimidate the press;·         The President of Singapore and the Minister for Home Affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, leading "to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases."; and ·         Singapore's "judicial officials, especially the Supreme Court, have close ties to the ruling party and its leaders". Notable cases include those against opposition leaders J. B. Jeyaretnam, Law Society ex-President Francis Seow and Dr. Chee Soon Juan. * Available in the Internet.   Conclusion   ·         Adherence to the rule of law is crucial to a liberal democracy; ·         It is importance that the laws are correctly interpreted and applied within the context of a liberal democracy; ·         Within a liberal democracy, governmental powers are not above the scope of the law.; ·         It is therefore essential that the judiciary, as the vehicle for enforcement of the law, be at arm’s length from other pillars of government that may come under legal question; ·         Immunity from legal liability for Judges while performing their duties; ·         Guarantees of tenure; ·         Salary protection; and ·         Judicial appointments, free from political interference, is therefore a central tenet of an independent judiciary.       Notes:   Constitution of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore and it is a codified constitution. The constitution cannot be amended without the support of more than two-thirds of the members of parliament on the second and third readings. The president may seek opinion on constitutional issues from a tribunal consisting of not less than three judges of the Supreme Court. Singaporean courts cannot offer advisory opinion on the constitutionality of laws. Part IV of the constitution guarantees the following: Liberty of a person (limited). Prohibition of slavery and forced laborProtection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trialsEqual protectionProhibition of banishment and freedom of movementFreedom of speech, assembly and association (limited) Freedom of religionRight to education Part XII of the constitution allows:   The Parliament of Singapore to enact legislation designed to stop or prevent subversion. Such legislation is valid even if it is inconsistent with Part IV of the constitution. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is a legislation under such provision.     Further reading   http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htmhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/business/suffering-singapores-slings-arrows/2006/04/18/1145344082712.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/3939236/Rule-of-Law-in-Singapore-Independence-of-the-Judiciary-and-the-Legal-Profession-in-Singaporehttp://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/pmo/press_release/P-20091111-1http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121674589942074015.html  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Knowing that there is no way they can continue censoring news about GIC's disastrous investment losses which is making headlines worldwide, the Straits Times now tried to sugarcoat the loss to make it more palatable to Singaporeans. In an article published yesterday with the most misleading title "GIC holds biggest stake in UBS", ST journalists Fiona Chan and Gabriel Chen downplay the significance of the loss as a "paper loss". (read article here) "THE Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has become the largest shareholder in Swiss banking giant UBS - though it has suffered a substantial paper loss in the process," the first sentence proclaimed wildly to give unsuspecting readers the erroneous impression that somehow GIC has secured a major coup by becoming the largest shareholder in UBS. What was not mentioned is that fund managers had been sounding the alarm bells of the financial health of UBS as early as 2007 which prompted the Swiss government had sold off its entire 9.3 per cent stake in UBS for a tidy profit in August 2009, less than a year after it poured six billion Swiss francs into it, leaving GIC as the single largest stakeholder in UBS. It was also not revealed that GIC took only 3 days to make the decision to invest in UBS: “Marcel Ospel, then chairman of Zurich-based UBS, called GIC Chief Investment Officer Ng Kok Song, according to comments they made at the time. Talks began on Dec. 6, 2007, and by the evening of Dec. 9, GIC had committed to make its biggest single purchase at the time,” Bloomberg reported. [Source: Bloomberg, 1 March 2010] After GIC made its disastrous investments in UBS and Citigroup, U.S. investment guru Jim Rogers predicted that it will lose a lot of money: “They’re making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share.” He minced no words in questioning the intelligence of GIC fund managers: “I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they’re smarter than anyone else. They have gigantic amounts of money, but they’ve made a bad judgment in these cases.” The Straits Times next claimed that GIC did not suffer an "actual loss" as it is not selling its stake now: "GIC has converted notes it bought in UBS two years ago - similar to bonds - into shares, incurring a paper loss of about two-thirds its original 11 billion Swiss francs (S$14.4 billion) investment. That loss is based on current share prices. Since GIC is not selling its stake now, it is not an actual loss. After the conversion, GIC holds a 6.6 per cent stake in Switzerland's biggest bank." It is highly unlikely that GIC will be able to recoup its loss anytime soon since the future of UBS looks bleak as it continues to be embroiled in a protracted court case with the U.S. government over the release of confidential information of its U.S. clients who are being suspected for tax evasion. There is a good chance that UBS will collapse if it is forced to close shop by the U.S. tax authorities. An experience fund manager at Siwsscanto Asset Management in Zurich told Bloomberg: “The game turned out not as easy as it may have seemed. It will take probably more like a decade than three years” for UBS shares to return to 2007 levels.” Even if GIC were to recoup its losses completely ten years later, the opportunity cost will be tremendous. Had GIC bought and sold the UBS shares at the right time like the Swiss government, it would not need to wait so long for its investments to bear any returns, not that it matters to GIC anyway since all its investments are "long-term" in nature. GIC’s Chairman Lee Kuan Yew appeared to be unfazed by the prospect of an impending UBS collapse. In an interview with Channel News Asia last year, he said: “When we invest, we are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. You may look as if you are making a big loss today, but you have not borrowed money to invest. You will ride the storm, the company recovers, your shares go up.” [Source: CNA, 6 Feb 2009] Lee is the Chairman of GIC since its inception in 1981. He is a lawyer by training and has no prior experience in the finance industry. Related articles: 1. GIC incurs more than$7 billion loss in its UBS investment 2. GIC may have lost more than $13 billion dollars in its UBS investment on paper 3. GIC's UBS investment: A chronicle of a disaster in the making 4. GIC's $14 billion investment in UBS in jeopardy after it faces collapse 5. Dr Tony Tan: GIC in good shape  Read More →