TR EMERITUS

Credit: MoneyDigest.SG Fairprice’s plan to charge for plastic bags (see below) reminded me of a really dumb Fairprice move recently that affects elderly S’porean members who are not union members. My mum who is in her 90s was told that she could not use her Fairprice co-op membership card (5% discount payable at the end of the yr) because Fairprice can no longer scan her ic because of data protection laws. She was told to get an OCBC NTUC debit card. Getting that card is not an issue because she has accounts with OCBC. Problem I realised was that that card was only issued to NTUC members which she is not. (Once upon a time, S’poreans could join Fairprice, a co-op, without being NTUC members. My mum was a pioneer member and btw just sighted her ownership certificate while doing housekeeping.) When I was at a major Fairprice outlet, I went to the info counter to enquire about the matter. After a really painful conversation (Partly because the Pinoy lady was in real pain: I told her to see doctor. She replied that she had just returned from the clinic.), I was given a number to ring. I called and was told that a special card would be posted to her identifying her to checkout staff as a Fairprice co-op member. It’s been three weeks, still no card, and I threw away the telphone number. As the lady couldn’t answer my query why the card was not sent to her before 1 August (date NTUC stopped scanning ics), I can now only assume the cards are not ready yet. Will they be ready by GE? Why this when it’s trying real hard to keep S’poreans (especially the oldies) happy with the PAP? Examples: Merdeka Generation: PAP cares for u, really they do Groceries: PAP cares for u, really they do Maybe PAP thinks that it’s got 65% of the votes in the bag? ( Why PAP aiming for 65% of the popular vote) Or maybe because Seah Kian Peng took his eye off the ball. He juz got promoted and someone made “an honest mistake” depriving members of a 5% rebate without his knowledge. For Pioneer G and Merdeka Gen Fairprice members, they can get up to 8% off . But maybe taz the problem. PAP and Fairprice think these people are getting close to free lunches, shumething only meant for millionaire ministers and NTUC tua kees? Vote wisely. ———————————————————————————- From Sept. 16, shoppers should bring their own reusable bag, or be prepared to pay extra for plastic bags at some FairPrice and Cheers outlets. in a month-long trial. FairPrice Xtra at Hougang One FairPrice Finest at Zhongshan Park FairPrice at Tai Seng FairPrice Xpress at 384 Lorong Chuan Cheers at 1 Create Way Cheers at 1 Anchorvale Street Cheers at 611 Aljunied Road This “No Plastic Bag” trial is part of FairPrice’s Plastic Bag Management Programme launched in 2018, which aims to save 30 million plastic bags annually by 2030. Along with the announcement of the trial, FairPrice also launched a S$1 million FairPrice Sustainability Fund. Plastic bags remain available for use at S$0.10 per transaction at the selected Cheers and FairPrice Xpress stores, and at S$0.20 per transaction at the other participating FairPrice stores. The proceeds will go to the Singapore Children’s Society and the Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund, FairPrice said in the media release. There was a better scheme once upon a time: Guess u don’t bring yr own bag to NTUC to save the planet and money. I do and “The FairPrice Green Rewards scheme, which was introduced in 2007, offers customers a 10-cent rebate when customers BYOB with a minimum spend of $10.” Ang moh tua kee doesn’t shop at NTUC I once bot stuff, telling the gal I didn’t want a bag. But as the stuff came to $9.60, she asked if I wanted a bag. I laughed saying “No”.   Cynical Investor Cynical Investor blogs at Thoughts of a Cynical Investor      Read More →

I will be blunt. To me, never mind how HDB mixes and matches or adjusts their grant structures, HDB Grants are still dirty words. Let me explain. HDB is a monopoly with a social mission of building truly Affordable flats to house our citizens. That, they have done well in the early years of our independence but over the decades, HDB has become too greedy and cunning. On one hand, pap ministers, especially former National Development minister Mah Bow Tan kept intoxicating and brainwashing Singaporeans that HDB flats are affordable but I urge readers to think harder and deeper if that is really so. If HDB flats are truly affordable, then there is no need for any housing grant whatsoever. I repeat. If HDB flats are truly affordable, then there is no need for HDB to extend generous housing grants to their buyers whatsoever. Grants are not free money. I repeat. Grants are not free money and they must be repaid back to HDB with interest years later when the flats are sold. What have happened to many people alearly is that after their flats have been sold and the compounded interest on their grants paid back to HDB, they then realised that they are left in a negative equity position. Their seemingly profits from their appreciating flat prices is gone and the balance in their CPF is also low or locked away. Never underestimate the power of compounding interest and interest on those very generous HDB grants could snowball to very, very large sums years later. Please ponder. If HDB flats are truly affordable, then there is no need to load the buyers with SHG or AHG etc. It maybe too late to wish that greed has not overcome and blinded policy makers at HDB to just build and sell flats the old, good and honest way instead of pricing their flats exorbitantly and use housing grants to masssge and mask unaffordability superably well. Think. I thank you all for reading my post again.   Simon Lim Amendment: kindly take note all readers. I have realised that I have made a mistake that CPF housing grants WILL NOT be returned back to HDB when the flats are sold but go back into the CPF accounts of the respective persons. This is an important and fundamental issue relating to my post above and kindly bear that in mind. Once again, I apologise for my initial misunderstanding about this issue. I apologise for all your inconvenience.        Read More →

Singapore has a dysfunctional employment system. The workforce is 3.6 million of which 36% or 1.3 million are foreign workers. Many of the local workers have to work as taxi drivers and private car drivers or take up part time job because they are not able to get a full time job. Many employers prefer to employ foreign workers instead of local workers. What is the problem and how can this be overcome? Here are the reasons why employers prefer foreign workers: a) It cost them less to employ foreign workers. Although the govt requires the employer to pay a levy for foreign workers, I am told that the employer is able to get the foreign worker to reimburse them for the levy. Although this practice is illegal, it is difficult for the govt to enforce it. Furthermore, there is no levy for foreigners on E-pass. b) Local workers are liable to be called up yearly for NS reservist duty, in the case of males, and are entitled to paid maternity leave for the first two children, in the case of females. The employer does not have to face these problems when they employ foreign workers. c) The foreign workers are recruited by employment agents who are able to take a commission of 3 to 6 months salary from the foreign workers. I am told that the employment agent gives a kickback of the commission to the person in charge of employing the foreign worker. The current practice is clearly to the detriment of the employment of local workers. I suggest the following measures to make it attractive for employers to employ local workers: a) Reduce the NS reservist duty to 3 years after completing full time military training. The employer will not face the disruption caused by reservist duty after that. b) The govt should take over the cost of paid maternity leave for women for the first two children. They now bear the cost for the third and subsequent children. This can be replaced, if necessary, by a small payroll tax. c) Introduce a levy for the employment of foreign workers on E-pass. d) Put a cap on the commission that the employment agent can collect from the foreign worker for their assistance in getting a job in Singapore. e) Take legal action against employers who collect reimbursement of levy from foreign workers. These measures will make it more attractive for employers to employ local workers rather than foreign workers.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →