TR EMERITUS

In her statement, Dr Khor said: "I would like to assure members of the public that the CPF Board acts in accordance with prevailing CPF policies in the interests of its members. CPF Board does not withhold any member's CPF monies if they are eligible to withdraw them, as with Ms Yap's case." I just read the ST this morning and there is a report on Rene Yap’s case. According to Amy Khor, CPF is trying to help Rene to withdraw her savings. However, Rene still has to abide by CPF’s regulation, ie that she must leave a minimum sum or pledge her property to the CPF before she can take out all her savings. What is this minimum sum that is being introduced by the CPF that effectively said the people owe the CPF a sum of money and if this sum is not placed in the CPF, either in cash or a pledge with a property, then a sum equivalent to the minimum sum must be kept in the CPF. Two points to this, the first of course is why should a retiree be compelled to keep a huge sum of money with the CPF when he should be living his golden years and enjoying his lifelong savings? Oh, he must keep the money, a minimum sum that is growing every year and now about $200k, so that he would not be a burden to the govt in case he squanders his money with mei meis or in Batam. It is for his own good. The govt is so caring. See my middle finger? I can’t hold it down. The other point is that Rene is from a generation that should not be affected by all the new regulations introduced before her time. The minimum sum should not be applicable to her and those of her generation and to several older generations. It should not be applicable to everyone if one rejects this ‘govt is your father’ and has the right to keep your money for your own good idiotic reason. The CPF is the people’s money for their retirement and how they want to spend their money in retirement is none of the govt’s business. Don’t give people the crap that if they squandered away their money who is to pay for them to live on? Not the govt for sure. This is not a welfare state. And do not insult the intelligence of the people to find their way to survive without the need to beg the govt for a meal in the hawker centre, food court or the restaurant. From Amy’s and CPF’s reasoning in the ST, they are all so willing to help Rene. But the likelihood of Rene getting all her money back from the CPF is as good as zilch. She must comply with the minimum sum requirements, ie a ransom that she has to pay to the CPF. Actually no, they don’t call it ransom. They call it for your good or for the good of the members that they must make the people pay up front in the form of the minimum sum. So Rene’s case is as good as close and Rene can kpkb till the cow comes home. Amy Khor and the CPF will be on their knees trying to help her. I am so touch, but the answer is still no. Because CPF rules say so. Rene should pray for a miracle to get all her money back from the CPF.   Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenew.blogspot.com    Read More →

We refer to the article “More workers report positive outcomes from national skills training framework” (Straits Times, Jun 11). 81% didn’t get pay raise? It states that “A greater proportion of workers reported receiving a pay raise – 19 per cent did so last year, four percentage points more than the year before”. So, does it mean that despite this year’s 4 percentage point improvement over the year before – 81% did not get a pay raise? Surveys vs statistics of outcomes? “Satisfaction” type surveys may be quite meaningless, unless they are supported by the statistics of the outcomes. If you ask workers – what is the most important desired outcome of training – arguably, the answer may be an increase in pay. So, let’s look at some recent job and wage statistics. Last 6 years’ negative real wage change? Also, the annual change in real total wages (including employer CPF contribution) was dismal, for the last 6 years from 2008 to 2013, at -1.7, -1.0, 2.9, 0.9, 0.4 and 2.9%. The real total wage change (excluding employer CPF contribution?) was even worse at, -2.4, -1.0, 2.7, 0.1, -0.8 and 2.9%, respectively. The real basic wage change was equally bad, at -2.2, -0.7, 1.1, -0.8, -0.1 and 2.7%, respectively. So, does this mean that the cumulative annualised real basic wage change from 2008 to 2013 was about slightly less than 0? 150,000 or 114,100 earning less than $1,000 in 2012? The Manpower Ministry told The Straits Times that there were 117,500 local full-time workers earning $1,000 and below last year, down from 150,000 in 2012. The above statistics are puzzling, because the total number working full-time and earning less than $1,000 was 114,100 in 2012, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Force in Singapore 2012 (Table 25, page 126). Earning less than $1,000 increased 3%? Now that we know from news reports that the number of full-time workers earning less than $1,000 was 117,500 last year – does it mean that it actually increased by about 3% from 114,100 in 2012? Those earning less than $1,000 keep increasing? There was an increase of about 3.4 per cent for 2012, from 2011′s 110,400 (in spite of NWC recommendations and not even accounting for inflation). 238,000 (full-time and part-time) earning less than $1,000? The number of locals (full-time and part-time) earning less than $500 and between $500 and $1,000 was 51,300 and 186,700, respectively in 2012. This means that a total of 238,000 locals (full-time and part-time) earned less than $1,000. Yet another recommendation for less than $1,000 workers? The National Wages Council (NWC) has recommended in its annual wage guidelines that workers earning less than $1,000 each month should get a pay hike of at least $60 , which follows its previous recommendations in 2012 and 2013 that these workers receive minimum pay hikes of $50 and $60. 6 in 10 followed the guidelines? It further added that while more firms followed the guidelines last year – about six in 10 compared to three in 10 in 2012. The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) noted that they still lag behind the nine in 10 unionised firms. 8 in 10 will follow the guidelines? Why do the above statistics seem to differ from that reported on the same day in the Business Times (“Minimum $60 pay rise for low income“, May 31) - “As at the end of last year, almost eight in 10 employers in the private sector had given or said that they intended to give a raise to workers earning less than $1,000 a month, up from six in 10 in 2012″? What we need to know is the percentage of workers earning below $1,000 who received the recommended increase, instead of what proportion of employers or unionised companies who were surveyed accepted the recommendations or said that they intended to do it? In this connection, the last time that the specific statistic was available last year for 2012, was that more than 70% who did not get the recommended increase. So much for yet another survey? If you remember last year, only 3 in 10 workers earning less than $1,000 received the at least $50 increment recommended by the NWC in 2012. (see here) “Spin doctoring”? This starkly sobbing statistic has to be seen in the “spin doctoring” context that it was reported in the media that while eight in 10 companies in the unionised sector accepted the recommendations and boosted the pay of their low-wage workers by at least $50 in 2012, but only three in 10 non-unionised companies followed suit. If not for the MOM report which came out just a few days after the media reports last year – we wouldn’t be the wiser that 8 in 10  and 3 in 10 non-unionised (implying unionised is so much better?) – actually means in totality only 3 in 10 of ‘less than $1,000′ workers got the $50! 63% of employers won’t increase pay more? It was reported that “While 37 per cent of employers surveyed said they would give staff larger salary increments, the rest said they would not change pay levels” (“OCBC gives staff $3m in Wage Credit payouts”, Straits Times, May 19). Does this indicate that the Wage Credit scheme may be a failure? 1 in 3 no pay increase? As if it isn’t bad enough that about 2 out of 3 employers indicated that they would not increase pay more because of the Wage Credit scheme – Of the Singaporeans eligible for the Wage Credit scheme, two-thirds received pay rises last year, which the first tranche of the Wage Credit Scheme payouts is helping to fund this year. Does it mean that 1 out of 3 Singaporean workers who earn less than $4,000 did not get any pay rise at all? Real income growth? Real median income change from 2008 to 2013 was only about 1.0 per cent per annum … for the 20th percentile – the real change per annum for the last 10 years was only about 0.3 per cent Real growth in graduates’ starting pay negativ? … The real growth in university, polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE)  graduates starting pay has been negative in the last 7 years or so. Widespread age discrimination? The labour statistics also indicate widespread age discrimination – with real pay decreasing as workers get older from their mid-thirties in age – particularly for the lower-wage occupations like cleaners and service workers. PMETs – hard to find jobs? PMETs may be finding it harder to get a job, as 34% of those laid off – could not find a job after 12 months. PMETs had highest redundancy rate? The problems of PMETs may also be compounded by their highest redundancy rate – PMETs were more vulnerable to redundancy, with 7.3 made redundant for every 1,000 PMETs, compared to production and related workers (5.7 per 1,000) and clerical, sales and service workers (2.8 per 1,000). Unemployed and under-employed? I understand that there are about 70,000 unemployed and long-term unemployed locals, more than 200,000 who have indicated that they would like to return to the workforce, tens if not hundreds of thousands of under-employed (getting much lower pay than their last drawn pay), etc. Impact of foreign workers? To what extent has our liberal foreign labour policies and huge influx of foreign workers – contributed to the woes of Singaporean workers as highlighted by the above statistics? 53% are Singaporeans? In this connection, with 38% of the workforce being foreign workers – If we assume that about 15% of the “locals”"workers are permanent residents, then the percentage of Singaporeans in the total workforce, is about 53%. Less than 50% are Singaporeans? If we make an adjustment for new citizens, does it mean that less than half the workforce were not “truly” Singaporeans? 260,800 “locals” jobs increase vs 451,934 new citizens/PRs? - What percentage of the increase in the resident labour force of 260,800 from 2007 to June 2013 were Singaporeans, against the estimated 451,934 new citizens and new PRs granted in the 7 years to end 2013?   SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian  Read More →

I am the writer of this article ('FTs congregating & using free WIFI near my block'). First of all allow me to thank you all for your kind responses. I truly appreciate the advice some of you have given me, as that was what I asked for. Now to come back to the issue. I am D.K Aljunited. Well, that is my handle here on TRE anyway. I've written a couple of articles here before. Never mind that. For those among you who remember, I thank you. For those few who think I'm a PAP IB, well that's ok too. Allow me first to clarify that I did call the police a few times but only because that was my final option. Well actually my second last option. Because you see, I wanted very much to keep this 'in house'. For I knew the incumbents would love to take any advantage to make us feel like we were repenting. And I sure the hell wasn't going to give them that joy. Or at least I thought. So I did anonymously inform my MP through his FB. I have already stated what happened next with my 'chat ' with him. So I took it upon myself to approach that RC. And I've also already stated how that turned out. And yes. I did approach these men a couple of times myself. Not to just chase them off, but to advice them that what they were doing was wrong. If not legally, as the Police claimed, but at least morally. After the Tekka riot, my wife and friends told me to stop. They told me that this should now be the problem of the immediate neighbours who live right above where they gather. But you see, I'm hard headed like that. I've lived in this neighbourhood since I shifted here when I was 13 ( I've now already crossed 40). So I feel very protective about it. Hence the reason I finally called the police. The first time, I called the NPP (Neighbourhood Police Post, for the uninitiated). The officer told me that he'll send a patrol down that night. The very next night, I noticed that nothing had changed. A few days later, I decided to call the Bedok Police Station. The officer there said he'd send a car down to check. 10 minutes later, I got a call back from a senior officer from that same station who told me that there really wasn't very much they could do because these men weren't really committing a crime, though he'd still send a patrol down. I informed him that they were loitering around under the block and piggybacking on an open wifi. Each one of those two actions is, I believe, or at least I thought, an illegal activity, no? I guess not. Heck, what do I know. A week or so later, as the situation got worse, I called the Police again. I got the same reply. That they'll send a car down and check. This time, I stood some distance away to watch what would happen. 30 odd minutes later, 2 officers, a gentleman and a lady, showed up and just shooed them away (some had already left by then). I knew right away that I've not seen the end of this. True enough, after some late supper and drinks with some friends at the coffee shop, as I walked back home, there they were again. About a month or so ago, when the area became blacked out due to the renovation, I called the Police again. I almost ended up in a heated argument with the officer over the phone when once again I was told that all they could do was to petrol the area and I told him how fruitless that has been. So there you are. I then posted to TRE and quite frankly, we've got to give it to them for giving us a voice. This, quite frankly, was my last option. To those who suggested calling the police every time, well it's a question of time before you will be called 'the boy who called wolf' (read up). And I don't wish my phone number to be associated as one who calls for everything and then get attended to last when one day it really matters. But to the many who heeded my plea. Who gave me some really good advice. I thank each and everyone of you. Mr Philip Teo, One Suggestion, Sgcynic gave some good solutions. Then Uwo, I wish to meet you some day soon neighbour. Some who, strangely, read my article on other sites (I didn't post it there), I thank you guys too. I suppose it's true that some genuine PAP Ibs were trying to use my post as an attack against WP. And now we know who YOU are! My article was never to attack my MP, whom I voted for. But then again, I'm not so blind or naive, to just sit back and allow any voted MP to just sit pretty in Parliament. I vote for whom I believe will make this country a better place for the future of its People. I don't care if they wear white, light blue, red with khaki pants or yellow (for me? 5 elections, a couple of walkovers, but always blue. Didn't really have another choice). I will make it a point to make sure we don't make the same blind mistakes our parents made. To simply vote for a different coloured uniform and then let our kids pay the price later in life. I won't, we won't, let our kids bleed the way we are bleeding today. I may be making my stand only through a keyboard today, but at least I live knowing I did try something for my country, my people and my family. Even if that's all I can offer for now. I may not have the courage of a good blogger who's pulling our PM by his ear, but I do know that we are each capable of correcting what's wrong in our own capacity. I don't claim to know everything. But I do know that this means a lot to me. If my chief MP wants to be the co-driver and slap my PM if he starts sleeping, he better realize that WE ARE the bosses who sit in the back seat of a very posh car called Singapore. That gives us the right to slap both their faces should they both start slagging off! Otherwise, we will remain as sheep. The only difference is our shepherd will be wearing a different shirt. One who might again, lead us astray. Then in 20 or 30 years time, our children will be going through what we are now. We ought not, will not be led blindly again. Ever. Cos if we can give them their jobs today as our MP's, never mind the colour of their uniform, they better know, in today’s world we have the means and the ways and more importantly, the right, to get them replaced.  They work for us. And we won't hesitate anymore. Yes, I am the guy who picked up my Country's flag from under my block. I am also the guy who posted ' You F**king asked for it' on this site after the last election. I never float, and I never follow. Keep fighting the good fight. At the end of the day, it seems we only have each other to get our Country back. From the depth of my heart, I thank each and every one of you all.   D.K. Aljunited * Submitted by TRE reader    Read More →