TR EMERITUS

In Today newspaper, it was stated The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has awarded a contract worth about S$749 million for the purchase of 91 new four-car trains for the Thomson and Eastern Region lines. The contract was awarded to a consortium comprising Kawasaki Heavy Industries, its Singapore affiliate, and CSR Qingdao Sifang. Kawasaki Heavy Industries is responsible for the overall train design and CSR Qingdao Sifang will handle the production of the train body shell and the final assembly. I would like to point out that CSR Sifang Qingdao Sifang Beihai is also in the asbestos making business. [Link] A case in point is that of Andy Dodds, the Assistant General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) in the 1980s. After he retired, Mr. Dodds contracted an asbestos-related disease, probably due to his exposure to asbestos whilst working in the locomotives’ shed in Scotland. The RMT brought a successful legal claim on behalf of his widow. Recent asbestos cases brought by trade unions on behalf of asbestos-injured railway workers or their surviving family members include: • Mr. Beadsworth died of asbestos-related lung cancer (2005); he was exposed to asbestos during the 43 years he worked as a coach fitter at the Locomotive Works in Derby. • Derrick Lambert died from mesothelioma (2005); he worked for British Rail at their Wolverton depot for 48 years first as an apprentice and then as a qualified coach trimmer fitting out old railway carriages. He was exposed to asbestos used for fireproofing upholstery and lagging carriages. The RMT brought and won his case for compensation. So how safe are our trains? Is LTA able to confirm that asbestos is not present or used in the manufacture of these carriages? TAN LAW *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

During the Parliament debate on Wednesday (28 May), PM Lee said that "constructive politics" depends on what political leaders do, how they act, the decisions they make, and the standards they hold to. Political leaders should have the courage and honesty to take responsibility for what they say and do. PM Lee said the PAP has been doing its best to practise this brand of politics. PM then singled out how the opposition chief, Mr Low Thia Khiang, had "abolutely nothing" to say about the substance of the government's programme when Mr Low joined the debate on Monday (26 May). PM Lee criticised Mr Low [Link]: "No critiques, no suggestions, no alternatives - nothing. There are many sorts of politics, and we need to get ours right. Not money politics, power politics, racial politics, the politics of envy. Constructive politics can help us scale new heights, Wrong politics will doom us. So when Low Thia Khiang said that "To me, in whatever way 'politics' is described and coloured, it is still politics", that was a breathtakingly cynical view of politics." In other words, PM Lee is saying that among the different kinds of politics, PAP doesn't practise "power politics". According to Merriam-Webster dictionary [Link], "power politics" is defined as: "Politics based primarily on the use of power as a coercive force rather than on ethical precepts." PM Lee said that on its part, the PAP has been upholding the "highest standards" of integrity, admitting wrongdoings even when it is politically inconvenient or embarrassing. He added: "Indranee Rajah on Monday pointed out the WP has flip-flopped on foreign workers. Low Thia Khiang denied this. He said 'whether we flip-flop… No. We are not. If she wishes to have a full debate on that please file a motion, we are prepared to debate that.' Mr Low's denial is simply false. WP did flip-flop. The record is there in the Hansard, for everyone to see." A reader wrote in to inform TRE that there seems to be a different understanding of politics with different PAP ministers. Thanks to the Internet, he was able to discover what Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said about politics just only last year. During the spat between Minister Vivian with WP over the cleaning issue of the hawker centres in Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council last year, Vivian accused Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh of being untruthful and lying that their contractor had included separate payment for both the scaffolding and cleaning of the high areas in the hawker centres located in Blocks 511 and 538 in Bedok North. In response, Ms Lim said that Vivian had “made very serious allegations” against herself and Mr Pritam. She pointed out that the misunderstanding arose over confusion whether the cleaning of high areas is supposed to be conducted once or four times a year. She also said that the issue started through a series of misleading emails exchanged between AHPETC staff and an NEA official over who was in charge of the erection and dismantling of scaffolding used during the cleaning. Minister Vivian then distributed a dossier containing "evidence", before specifically pointing out documents showing that Ms Lim had been untruthful. Speaking to WP Chief Low Thia Kiang then, Minister Vivian said [Link]: “Politics is a contest for power, but the key principle when you have power is, don’t take advantage of people under your charge, and always be honest and upfront with them." Mr Low later replied explaining that the whole episode arose from a misunderstanding over the terms spring cleaning and annual cleaning. The TRE reader asked, "Is that a U-turn or flip flop? Or is someone in PM's cabinet not practising 'constructive politics' ?" In fact, TRE later discovered that the 2 complaint letters in the "dossier" which was made public, came from 2 PAP-linked Kaki Bukit grassroots leaders: Block 538 Hawker Association – Mr Ng Kok Khim, PBM (‘The man in the centre of AHPETC controversy is a PAP grassroots leader‘) Block 511 Hawker Association – Mr Jonathan Oh Swee Yang (‘Blk 511 Hawker Association Chairman is a PAP-linked grassroots leader too‘)    Read More →

Dr Amy Khor I refer to the 28 May 2014 Straits Times report “S’poreans first’ hiring not good for economy in the long term”. Dr Amy Khor said that a Singaporeans first policy would not benefit our economy in the long term as firms that experience hiring constrains might be prompted to move out of Singapore. We cannot suppose government and government linked companies will move out of Singapore if they fail to hire foreigners can we? Will the Singapore Police Force move out of Singapore if it fails to hire foreigners? Similarly, service based industries that rely on face to face interaction to do business with the customer cannot move out of Singapore without also losing the Singapore business. • McDonalds cannot move out of Singapore without losing the business of selling burgers in Singapore. It will take hours for a JB McDonalds motorcycle rider to deliver a McDonalds meal to a customer in Singapore. • Petrol kiosks cannot move out of Singapore without losing the business of distributing petrol in Singapore. They can at most sell ¼ tank to every customer that drives to JB. • NTUC Fairprice, Sheng Shiong and 7-11 cannot move out of Singapore without losing their distribution businesses in Singapore As long as there is money to be made that requires face to face contact with customers, firms in Singapore will not move out of Singapore despite hiring constrains. Dr Khor should realize that the Fair Consideration Framework will not solve the problem of unfair hiring practices. Foreigners in charge of hiring decisions can continue to hire their own nationals after advertising their jobs on the national job bank for 14 days even if there are Singaporean applicants with the right skills. Dr Khor is therefore not putting Singaporeans’ interests first because the grown economy and increased job opportunities will still go to foreigners. Dr Khor’s call for practicality is a mere call for laziness as it doesn’t go far enough to solve the problem. Dr Khor claims that in a globalised economy, competition for jobs is between countries and not within countries. Dr Khor is only partially correct. In a globalised economy, a country that has job protection for its nationals only has to compete with other countries for jobs. But a country that has no job protection for its nationals not only has to compete with other countries for jobs but also has to compete within the country for jobs. So it is double competition for Singapore compared to another globalised economy with job protection. Doctors, lawyers and dentists are quite well protected from the globalised economy because not any foreign university degree in medicine, law or dentistry is recognized in Singapore. If the Ministry of Manpower can similarly limit work permits to Singapore qualifications or qualifications from elite institutions of education, it will not only give Singaporeans a leg up in our job search, it will also boost the value of our university degrees and polytechnic diplomas. What remains then is simply to improve the relevance of our university and polytechnic curricula to industry. If Singaporeans first has been good for doctors, lawyers and dentists for so long, why can't it be good for the rest of the economy in the long run? Thank you Ng Kok Lim Straits Times, 'S'poreans first' hiring not good for economy in the long term, 28 May 2014 Ms Foo Mee Har (above) said that while she agreed that the country must remain open to global talent, Singaporeans with the right skills should be given the first pick of jobs. A "SINGAPOREANS first" policy would not benefit the economy in the long term, said Senior Minister of State for Manpower Amy Khor. It might constrain firms' hiring decisions and prompt them to move out of the country, she cautioned yesterday. She was responding to Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast GRC), who had called for firms to give qualified Singaporeans priority over foreigners for professional, managerial and executive (PME) jobs on Monday. Other MPs have also argued for more protection and support for PMEs since the parliamentary debate on the President's Address began on Monday. Said Dr Khor: "We are in fact putting the interests of Singaporeans first when we say that we want to grow the economy and job opportunities. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it." Ms Foo yesterday clarified that while she agreed the country must remain open to international talent, Singaporeans with the right skills should be given the first pick of jobs. She asked "if the Ministry will consider, going forward, that... (if there are) two equally qualified persons, that the Singaporean will be given the opportunity first". Dr Khor said the Manpower Ministry's Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), which will take effect from Aug 1, will give Singaporeans with the relevant skills "a fair chance" to compete for jobs. The ruling requires companies to advertise on a jobs bank for 14 days before applying to hire foreign PMEs on employment passes. However, the firm's eventual hiring decision is left up to them. Compelling employers to hire local PMEs who might not have the right skills is likely to "introduce significant labour market rigidity", said Dr Khor. This could ultimately hurt Singaporeans, if companies relocate because their manpower needs are not met. Instead, the Government's approach has been to maintain a level playing field, and help equip Singaporeans with the skills they need to fill "quality jobs". "In the globalised economy, competition for jobs tend to be between countries and not only within countries," she said.  Read More →