TR EMERITUS

I’ve been spending a little less time on the blog and focusing more of my time on writing for the mainstream media in recent days. A part of shifting focus has been work-related. The other has been the fact that there are issues that need to be raised in a place where there’s going to be wide discussion. The most prominent issue that has caught my attention and the attention of many in Singapore is the issue of foreign worker dormitories. The reason for this is simple, these are the places where the explosion in Covid-19 cases have been found and the government has decided to throw a lifeline to the dormitory operators by offering to foot the bill for the increased operational costs that the dormitory operators will have to face. More details on that story can be found at: [LINK] While the stay-at-home orders and lockdowns on the dormitories has undoubtedly raised operational costs for the dormitory owners, one has to ask why the government has decided to step in as their proverbial sugar daddy. This is especially in a situation where the dormitory owners are in no danger of going bankrupt. As matter of principle, I’m against subsidies from the government, whether its to individuals or corporations. Having grown up in the West, I saw how noble intentions ruined. Welfare, which was meant to help the poor ended up destroying the incentive to work. “Free” healthcare was often abused (think of the 18 months it takes to get an appointment with an orthodontist in the NHS) and then, there’s the well subsidized business of farming, which became very lucrative for farmers who realized that farming was not about crops or livestock but filling out forms. I get why some subsidies exists. On a personal level, there are people who are basket cases that you can’t leave to rot (think of the problems they’ll cause as they rot). I think of Flesh Ball and her various men as an example. When it comes to businesses, there are times when a subsidy is necessary, especially when it involves bringing something to market that will have eventual social benefits. Renewable energies for example, were highly subsidized because they were expensive. However, those subsidies have paid off in that the cost of producing renewables are now competitive and it has provided the world with energy sources that don’t damage the environment. Then there are exceptional circumstances where subsidies to businesses help provide social collapse. Subsidies to businesses in the current shut down of the global economy have helped keep people who might otherwise be unemployed in a job. The alternative is mass long-term unemployment, which in turn would mean social unrest. So, the question is, does the dormitory operations industry justify giving a subsidy? I believe that the obvious answer is no. Firstly, there is no benefit to the tax payer in doing so. Unlike renewable energy companies, they are producing anything that would add value to either people or the planet in the long run. They are merely putting people into a certain space and charging a fee for it. Secondly, the dormitory operators are not in any danger of going bankrupt and throwing people out of work. While a breakdown of their number of employees is not available, a look at Centurion Corporation’s website would indicate that they are still hiring. [LINK] As mentioned in two letters to the Straits Times (including one by me), the dormitory owners are exceptionally profitable. Details can be found at: https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/why-foot-the-bill-for-dorm-operators-that-have-profited-for-years; and https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/forum-let-dormitory-operators-face-the-music-themselves Numbers quoted in both letters were taken from Centurion Corporation’s financial website at (Being a listed company, Centurion Corporation has to publish its financial results): [LINK] The letter by Mr. Cheng Shoong Tat got the board of the Centurion Corporation to scramble and they had to issue a “clarification” as to what their $103.78 million profit on revenue of $133.353 million meant. They’ve made a point that of that $103,78 million profit that they made includes a “one-time” net fair valuation gain of $66.3 million on investment properties and assets held for sale. The clarification also makes the point the worker dormitory business is just 65percent of their total. More details can be found at: [LINK] What does this mean in layman terms? Is the company saying that the $66 million in “fair-valuation” gains merely an accounting treatment rather than actual cash? Even if you take the “clarification” at face value, Centurion’s profits are exceedingly healthy by any standards. If you take out the “one-time” net fair-valuation gain, the profits before tax would be $44.735 million (Gross Profit less expenses), which would mean profit margins of 33 percent (still very healthy by any standard) and if you less income tax, there’s still $37.522 million, which means a margin of 28 percent. Furthermore, the “one-time” net valuation gain is also in the financial results for 2018, which would suggest that the one-time gains are fairly consistent. All these factors should not distract from the fact that Centurion Corporation is sitting on a cash pile of some $48 million (cash at bank). Nobody is saying that Centurion Corporation and its brethren are not allowed to make profits. What is questioned is why the tax payer has to subsidise them when there is a situation where they are likely to make less. The point about going into business is that you take the risk and rewards accordingly. When times are good, you are entitled to your profits but when times are harsh, you take the losses. Other businesses have also taken hits. SIA, for example has had to lay off staff because the global airline industry has been badly hit. However, SIA provides jobs for many Singaporeans and actively promotes Singapore, something which the dormitory owners do not. The most crucial point to the case against footing the bill is that many of the costs that are now being imposed on the dormitory owners are now being forced to take on, were costs that should have been factored in when the Foreign Employers Dormitories Act (“FEDA”) came into force in January 2016. This act essentially sets certain standards in the industry of providing accommodation for foreign workers and the fact that the government introduced this act would indicate that the government realized that it needed to have some oversight on the industry. More can be found at: [LINK] This leads to the fact that half of all dormitory owner’s flout licensing requirements on a yearly basis as the Minister of Manpower admitted to parliament: [LINK] So, the question remains, why should the tax payer bail out a highly profitable and cash rich industry from failing to fulfill its legal obligations? What hold does this industry have over the tax payer that it can demand a right to be subsidized to correct its own failings. When was it my obligation as a tax payer to fund an industry’s right to make healthy profits.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

Is this the face of a selfless politician masquerading in the dedication of service to the people? Hard to convince when they enrich themselves by paying themselves millions of dollars from taxpayers' money. What is jangling the people's mind right now is how much the prime minister's wife is getting for helming the Temasek Holdings as CEO. Her appointment had actually raised some eyebrow as many people could not believe that she could qualifiy for the job if she were not the prime minister's wife. It will be a million dollar question if a candid answer could come from her selectors. It looked like a fait accompli foisted on the people which could only leave them flabbergasted. But a more sinister surprise awaited the public and they could not be more flabbergasted than the concealment of the arcane salary by the run-of-the-mill PAP government that would be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. The people have never been so vociferous in their outcry for justice in demanding the government of the drollish PM Lee Hsien Loong to be upfront in disclosing the arcane salary of his wife Ho Ching. They could be under the initial miscalculation that this demand could fizzle out in time but I think that the intensity of the vocal demand has rattled them and put them in a very untenable position which can continue indefinitely until there is a goodwill response from the government. With the general election on the horizon maybe it may have an auspicious effect of leveraging the political myopia of the government to give a welcome acquiescence to the people's demand. I think this will enhance the political standing of the PAP and is this really a great price to pay? The PAP leaders must show that they really have the interests of the people at heart. It may not be out of place to give some adulation to the PAP Multi-Ministerial Task Force for showing some creditable imagination in their handling of the coronavirus pandemic with the circuit breaker measures notwithstanding the flaks that came from certain quarters. I think it s not an accident that Taiwan is showered with accolades for their exemplary handling of the coronavirus pandemic and it would not be a lack of humilty to take a leaf out of Taiwan's book. The world is changing and is changing rapidly and it would be matter of great regret if Singapore could not take the advantage of benefitting from the change.   Yoong Siew Wah * The author was the director of Singapore’s Internal Security Department from 1971 to 1974. Before that, he was the director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Mr Yoong is now retired and blogs at Singapore Recalcitrant.      Read More →

On 27 April, the Singapore government claimed to have tested 21,000 migrant workers in the dormitories. On 12 May, the Singapore government originally claimed to have tested 32,000 migrant workers in the dormitories. 2 days ago, the Singapore government said it is no longer 32,000, they now claim that on 12 May, they have tested 64,000 migrant workers in the dormitories - or twice the previous number. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157552905724141&id=533614140 https://www.moh.gov.sg/…/controlling-the-outbreak-preparing… Today, The Straits Times reported that the government claimed to have tested 82,000 migrant workers as of Tuesday (19 May). https://www.straitstimes.com/…/448-new-covid-19-cases-in-si… This would mean that between 12 May and 19 May, 18,000 tests were done over 7 days. But this would only give an average of 2,571 tests a day. Didn't the government claim that there have been testing "more than 3,000" migrant workers a day?   Roy Ngerng      Read More →