TR EMERITUS

We refer to the article “18 cleaning firms get licences under new wage system” (Straits Times, May 7). 85% of cleaning firms have yet to apply for licence? It states that “Another 110 or so firms have submitted licence applications to the National Environment Agency (NEA), but about 85 per cent of the estimated 900 cleaning firms here have yet to do so.” “Ample training places” for cleaners? The NEA yesterday responded to worries that the lack of training places held employers back from sending workers for training. “There is ample training capacity,” it said, pointing to the increase in monthly training places from about 900 before March to 4,500 from April.” As there are about 69,000 local cleaners - if you divide this by the 900 training places available monthly before March – does it mean that it may have taken about 6 years and 5 monthsto train the 69,000 local cleaners? Since as I understand that the subject new licensing scheme requiring cleaners to go through the WDA course was only announced about a year ago – is this a joke or what? – To say that there “is ample training capacity” in response “to worries that the lack of training places held employers back from sending workers for training”? Do foreign cleaners need to be trained too? And what about the foreign cleaners – do they need to be trained too? Since not more than 40% of a cleaning firm’s cleaners can be foreign workers – does it mean that there are about another 46,000 foreign cleaners who may need to be trained too? As to “These firms are now bound by law to pay their workers a minimum monthly basic wage of $1,000. The salary increases to $1,600 for cleaning supervisors” 70% decrease in real pay? The Median Monthly Gross Wage of cleaners, labourers & related workers (aged 35 – 39), was $1,500 in 2000, and the Median Monthly Gross Wage for cleaners (all ages) in 2000 was $1,277. So, even when we achieve the target of a minimum of $1,000 basic pay for cleaners – since inflation was about 34% from 2000 to March 2014 – does it mean that in real terms it is still a decrease of about 42% in salary compared to 14 years ago? Even when we achieve the $1,600 salary for cleaning supervisors (and how many cleaners can become supervisors?) – it may still be about 6% lower in real terms, compared to a cleaner in 2000. Oh no – not another scheme to get just $1,000? How many more schemes must we have – and there have been so many in recent years – progressive wage model, cleaning companies accreditation scheme, town councils’ cleaners’ scheme – just to name a few – before our cleaners – most of whom are, I believe, elderly Singaporeans – get a decent pay that they can survive on! So many low-wage workers? And what about other low-wage workers other than cleaners? There were 207,100 residents earning below $1,000 and  416,900 below $1,500, out of the total workforce of 2,004,600 in 2012 – which means that about 1 in 10 earned below $1,000 and  1 in 5 below $1,500. A First World country and economy with Third World wages indeed! SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian  Read More →

The government has increased the CPF Minimum Sum to "maintain its real value", they claimed. The CPF Minimum Sum has no inherent value Now, think about this - what is the purpose of the CPF Minimum Sum? It is a marker of how much the government wants Singaporeans to retain inside the CPF. Thus the CPF Minimum Sum by itself has no inherent monetary worth because it is only a marker. So, it doesn't quite make sense for the government to claim to want to increase the CPF Minimum Sum to "maintain its real value" when there isn't really a "value". The real value of our CPF monies is what needs to be increased However, the thing that has inherent monetary worth is our individual CPF accounts themselves. Thus if the government wants to "maintain any real value", then the value that the government should maintain is our CPF itself. And the only way to maintain the real value of our CPF is to increase the CPF interest rates to above inflation. The Government is not interested in increasing the real value of our CPF However, take note of how the government has constantly raised the CPF Minimum Sum but has depressed the CPF interest rates since 1999 to be at 2.5%. What this shows is that the government is clearly not interested in "maintaining the real value" of our CPF. If so, why then does the government want to "maintain the real value" of the CPF Minimum Sum? The PAP wants to increase the CPF Minimum Sum because... This is why: the government claimed that it wants to "maintain the real value" of the CPF Minimum Sum. Technically, this doesn't make logical sense. The CPF Minimum Sum has no inherent monetary worth. It is only a marker. It is only a line that can be shifted up and down. Thus what you have to question is why the government shifted the marker upwards? As explained, the CPF Minimum Sum is a marker of how much the government wants Singaporeans to retain inside the CPF. Thus the only logical reason for the government to want to move the CPF Minimum Sum marker upwards is because the government wants Singaporeans to retain more of our monies inside the CPF. This has nothing to do with "maintaining any value". The only motivation is that the government has a want to increase the marker and has used "maintaining the real value" as an excuse to do so. The PAP does not want Singaporeans to retire However, as the government has been unwilling to increase the real value of the CPF itself (which is what is really of value) but would keep shifting the CPF Minimum Sum marker upwards, what this means is: (1)  The real value of the CPF doesn't grow because the interest earned has been less than inflation. (2)  As the CPF Minimum Sum marker keeps being shifted upwards, more and more Singaporeans have to keep more of our monies inside the CPF and fewer and fewer Singaporeans would be able to take the monies from our CPF out. Do you see the dual pressure from both ends which forces more Singaporeans to first, not be able to save, and second, not be able to take our CPF monies out, such that Singaporeans cannot retire? CPF Minimum Sum increased, CPF real value drops: More Singaporeans cannot retire If you follow this logic flow so far, let's summarise: (1)  The increase of the CPF Minimum Sum marker is not to "maintain any real value". This marker has no inherent monetary worth. The only reason to increase this marker is to trap more of Singaporeans' CPF monies in. (2)  The CPF interest rates have been depressed at 2.5% since 1999. The real value of the CPF has thus been diminished. (3)  For the real value that the government should maintain - the CPF itself - the government has shown that it does not want to maintain it. The government does not want our CPF monies to grow. (4)  For something without any inherent monetary worth - CPF Minimum Sum, the government pretended to want to "maintain" it. In effect, what they did was simply to push up the CPF Minimum Sum. (5)  The net effect is that because the real value of the CPF itself is dwindling and the CPF Minimum Sum marker has been pushed upwards, this logically means that more Singaporeans are not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum and are not able to withdraw our CPF monies. How the PAP hid their real intent (A)  This article wants to show what Singaporeans already know - the PAP wants to increase the CPF Minimum Sum only because they want to trap our CPF monies inside (for their own use). (B)  This article also wants to show that the PAP's rationale for increasing the CPF Minimum Sum - to "maintain its value" - is a fallacy and has no logical or technical sense. (C)  Finally, this article also wants to show that for the only thing with real inherent monetary worth - our CPF itself - the PAP has instead refused to increase its value. Read: The PAP does not want to increase our CPF monies but want to incense the CPF Minimum Sum to trap more of our monies in. Thus by doing this logical deduction, it has been shown that the PAP is hypocritical and two-faced. They never meant to increase the value of our CPF at all but pretended that they wanted to. The real reason for the PAP to depress the real value of our CPF and to increase the CPF Minimum Sum, as explained, is to force Singaporeans to work longer since we are not able to withdraw our CPF monies. The PAP has failed as a Government The PAP is cunning, treacherous and manipulative. By distorting the truth, they had wanted to pretend to Singaporeans that they wanted to "help" us when in actual fact, they wanted to trap us further. This is irresponsible. The PAP has reneged on its role as the government and has taken over and repurposed government for their own intent. So, what is this intent, if it is not to take care and protect Singaporeans? ***** In view of the unreasonable increase in the CPF Minimum Sum, we will be organising an event on 7 June at 5 pm at Hong Lim Park to call for Singaporeans' CPF to be returned to us. The PAP has used the government to pursue their own hidden agenda, while forcing Singaporeans to live more difficult lives. The PAP has taken our retirement for themselves to earn high interests on it, while devaluing our CPF and our ability to retire. This is wrong. We have to stand up and speak up against this scourge. It's time to stand up and come together to speak up against such wrongdoings. You can join the Facebook event page here. Roy Ngerng * The author blogs at The Heart Truths.  Read More →

Kaki Bukit Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) chairman David Poh posted on notice boards in Kaki Bukit a letter to residents stating that the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) had not nominated the area for a national upgrading programme this year. In his letter, dated 3 May 2014, Mr Poh said Kaki Bukit was not among the 3 Aljunied projects selected by HDB for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). Mr Poh said the relevant town council must nominate projects before they are selected and that AHPETC did not nominate any such projects for Kaki Bukit this year. The council's nomination must also be supported by the ward's grassroots adviser, who is either a PAP MP or PAP candidate who lost in the last election. HIP is an initiative of HDB for flats built up to 1986 which have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP). It is meant to help HDB residents deal with common maintenance problems related to ageing flats, such as spalling concrete and ceiling leaks. "The CCC understands that many of our residents are facing problems like spalling concrete, toilet floor water leakage etc, and look forward to HIP coming to their blocks. Kaki Bukit is one of the oldest estates in Singapore, with some flats as old as 37 years," Mr Poh wrote. Another letter was posted on the notice boards, dated 10 February 2014, which Mr Poh wrote to AHPETC. With all 54 blocks in Kaki Bukit at least 30 years old, Mr Poh appealed to AHPETC to consider prioritising 4 blocks in Bedok North Street 3 that are around 37 years old for the upcoming HIP. Responding to the latest assault by the grassroots leaders of Kaki Bukit, AHPETC published a response on its website on Friday (9 May): SPREADING THE BENEFITS OF HIP We refer to the Kaki Bukit Citizens Consultative Committee’s letter dated 28 Apr 2014 which has been put up on People’s Association noticeboards in the Kaki Bukit ward of Aljunied GRC. The letter states that the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) did not nominate any blocks in the Kaki Bukit ward of Aljunied GRC for the HDB Home Improvement Programme (HIP) for 2014. In nominating clusters of blocks for the HIP, AHPETC considers the age of the blocks as well as the need to ensure that, over time and in the interest of fairness to all residents, all wards across the Town Council are nominated for such upgrading projects. As a mature town with in excess of 700 blocks of flats, AHPETC hosts many old blocks of flats in addition to those in Kaki Bukit. The exception is Punggol East SMC, which has newer blocks that do not qualify for HIP. For the years 2012 and 2013, AHPETC nominated various clusters in the Eunos, Hougang, Paya Lebar and Kaki Bukit wards for the HIP program. The Kaki Bukit cluster (Blocks 533 to 536) was eventually selected by HDB for 2013. For 2014, the Town Council nominated clusters in the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol, Serangoon and Paya Lebar wards for the HIP. HDB selected the clusters in Bedok Reservoir-Punggol and Serangoon wards for FY 2014. HIP is a national programme that commenced around 2008. When the current TC management took over in 2011, many HIP-eligible blocks including those in Kaki Bukit had not yet been nominated nor chosen for HIP. The HDB has since announced that it would ramp up the HIP project, increasing the number of eligible units per year from 28,000 units to 35,000 units. Next year, we will nominate more clusters for HIP and look forward to HDB’s fair consideration of the nominations. ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL 9 May 2014 In other words, AHPETC did nominate Kaki Bukit flats for HIP last year. This year, it just wanted to give HDB flats in other areas in Aljunied GRC a chance. The Kaki Bukit grassroots leaders are being picky and petty, complaining about every little thing since Aljunied GRC fell to opposition hands. Minister Vivian's exchanges with AHPETC over cleaning issues at Kaki Bukit This is not the first time Kaki Bukit grassroots leaders have tried to paint AHPETC in a bad light. Last year, when Minister Vivian and WP MP Sylvia Lim crossed swords in Parliament, the Minister released a dossier of documentary evidence to “prove” that AHPETC had attempted to charge the hawkers extra for cleaning the high areas of 2 hawker centres in Kaki Bukit. AHPETC denied this and maintained that there was a misunderstanding whether the cleaning session was an annual or a quarterly one. On a conciliatory note, WP Low Thia Khiang said that both the town council and NEA have “room for improvement” when it comes to communication. Inside the dossier, there were 2 petition letters by Block 511 and Block 538 Hawker Associations which had been forwarded to the press. They were petition letters which, after being published by the press in early June 2013, brought the hawker centre cleaning issue to the public’s attention. TR Emeritus discovered that the 2 "complaint" letters were sent by 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') Jonathan Oh and Ng Kok Khim were no longer town councillors of Marine Parade Town Council after 2011. This was because in the 2011 general election, Kaki Bukit ward was cut out from Marine Parade GRC and put into Aljunied GRC in the hope of bolstering the PAP's votes in the latter GRC. As it turned out, PAP lost Aljunied GRC, thereby ending the town councillor careers of Jonathan Oh and Ng Kok Khim. They could not represent Kaki Bukit any more as town councillors in the opposition-controlled Aljunied Town Council. These PAP grassroots leaders must have been quite annoyed by WP's winning Aljunied GRC as it caused them to lose their town councillor jobs.  Read More →