TR EMERITUS

The SCDF says that it has done a follow up with the Town Council following a report made by Dr Chee Soon Juan with regards to the residents’ feedback that the fire hose reel on the floor was not working during the time a fire broke out at Bukit Batok on 1 November 2019. The SCDF told Dr Chee that fire safety measures and the maintenance of equipment is the responsibility of town councils. He assured Dr Chee in a telephone call that the SCDF will take action against the relevant bodies if breaches of safety codes have been committed. The Bukit Batok estate is managed by the Jurong Town Council. Below is the correspondence between the SCDF and Dr Chee. 5 November 2019 Dear Dr Chee, We refer to your feedback on 3 Nov 2019. Thank you for highlighting this matter to us. Following the incident on 1 Nov 2019, SCDF officers have done a follow up with the Town Council. Town Councils are responsible for the maintenance of their estate’s fire safety measures and ensuring that they are functioning and well-maintained. SCDF officers will be inspecting the premises to ensure the Town Council’s compliance with the fire safety requirement. Enforcement action will be taken in the event of non-compliance. Yours sincerely, Wee Chai Meng SSO Service Excellence Service Excellence Department Singapore Civil Defence Force 5 November 2019 Dear Mr Wee, Thank you for your reply. I am also following up on our telephone conversation a few minutes ago. I am glad to hear that the SCDF is looking into the matter with the Town Council responsible and your assurance that action will be taken against the relevant bodies if maintenance and inspection standards are found to have been breached. Such breaches, as you will agree, are serious violations of fire safety codes and have grave consequences. As it is, the three persons who were rescued from the fire were all hospitalised for burn injuries and smoke inhalation. I await your report on the investigation of the matter. Thank you. Chee Soon Juan Secretary-General Singapore Democratic Party      Read More →

After reading the u/m passage about three S’poreans’ experiences (spending thousands of dollars changing lots of maids in extra quick time ), I remembered an Oscar Wilde quote (“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”) which in this case would read To lose one maid may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose five, six or seven looks like carelessness. Or as is more likely, losing so many shows bitchiness or cattiness at work. Not only must these S’poreans be really bad employers but they are either in denial, or too thick to realise that they are slave drivers (Or maybe they think they are entitled to behave like PAP millionaire ministers?). What do you think? [A] 31-year-old sales manager, who wanted to be known only as Ms Tan, said that she had encountered “all princesses” after her trusty Filipino maid of two years returned home when her contract ended in 2016. The mother of three — who ended up changing seven maids within 1.5 years  — caught one helper on surveillance camera lying stretched out on her sofa and using her face mask while her family was away on holiday, even when she had been given tasks to complete. Two other replacements were “tai-tais”, she said, including one who took taxis whenever she headed out. A 43-year-old manager in a private equity firm, who declined to be named, similarly had to change six helpers between 2015 and 2018, after losing a long-time Indonesian helper who wanted to return home to take care of her mother. “They are just here for play and fun, demanding a lot of things from the get-go,” said the mother of three. She said that she used about S$15,000 of her savings to transfer the maids out, before her former Indonesian helper agreed to return in August this year. Ms Tay Mui Lan, 29, owner of a cafe in the East Coast area, said she had spent about S$10,000 over the past six months changing five maids — all of whom did not want to work for her household of five. They came up with all kinds of “drama” after getting assigned to her family’s home, a four-storey terraced house in Serangoon. One “purposely” did things that frustrated her, such as scratching her floor and car and cooking for two instead of four, as if to spite the family,  said Ms Tay. Based on her observations, Ms Tay felt that the maids were “picky”, adding that her demands were not unreasonable — changing the bedsheets once every month, and ensuring that dirty laundry was not piling up. She added that she did not ask for all four floors to be cleaned daily. “I don’t understand why I cannot get a helper (who sticks around). Maybe I am too nice,” she said. Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-hiring-maids-no-longer-luxury-longstanding-issues-could-snowball-if-unchecked Seriously reading the article makes me realise that the agents are breaking the law on the fees, maids are charged. My mum’s maid was charged six months fees (article says max is two months). And agents don’t tell employers all the legal requirements. I didn’t realise that health insurance is a must. Any idea who to get insurance from for my mother’s maid? NTUC Income? Btw, BBC says here cleaners can afford maids. How not to vote for the PAP?   Cynical Investor Cynical Investor blogs at Thoughts of a Cynical Investor        Read More →

Mr Saktiandi Supaat, a People’s Action Party Member of Parliament asked for eligibility criteria for employment pass (EP) holders be tightened in Parliament yesterday. He said: “We cannot continue to have the inflow of foreign specialists in perpetuity without regard for the well-being of our Singapore core.” In response, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Minister of State for Manpower and National Development said that strong stance against favouring foreigners for employment has not gone unnoticed and noted locals continue to hold the majority of jobs that companies could hire EP holders to undertake. He said, “But the ministry will study Mr Saktiandi’s suggestion on expanding on the scheme to see how else local workers can benefit”. Whatever that doublespeak means. The Minister of State also warned that the Global Competitiveness Ranking released by the World Economic Forum in October, a global index that ranked Singapore as the world’s most competitive economy also highlighted the difficulties bosses face when trying to hire foreign labour where we ranked 93 out of 141 economies on the ease of employing staff from overseas without clarifying whether the report refers to employment pass or work permit holders for labour-intensive companies such as those in the manufacturing and service sectors. This is disingenuous as it almost seems as if Singapore is one of the most difficult places for foreign talent PMET’s to find jobs in when all of us know that this is simply untrue. Instead, note the report about the easing of our foreign labour stance for service, manufacturing firms again appearing to conflate employment pass holders and work permit holders without clarifying which type of foreign talent the easing would apply to: “The Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore said in July this year that it will allow for more flexible requirements for foreign professionals looking to apply for an employment pass (EP) to work in technology companies here in a move to grow the sector.” While appearing defiant about how apparently difficult it is for foreigners to get jobs here, they suggest Singapore must consider easing of our foreign labour stance. So which is it, tighten or easing?; “cannot continue to have the inflow of foreign specialists in perpetuity” or easing of our foreign labour stance? They cannot be allowed to sing both songs or talk from both sides of their mouths. Why ask vaguely for eligibility criteria for employment pass (EP) holders be tightened and then get an even more vague and unsatisfactory reply as to studying how to EXPAND on the employment pass scheme? The $1.5 million dollar question to ask that was not asked is this: if the country’s strong stance against favouring foreigners for employment has not gone unnoticed, why has the CECA agreement not been tabled for debate and repudiation in Parliament? This is the People’s agenda and the will of the people on the foreigner issue having been acknowledged in Parliament must be acceded to.   Khush Chopra      Read More →