The Government has called on companies to embrace flexible working arrangements like working from home. I believe this will only work if companies and managers change their attitudes to working from home.
There is still very much a “show face” culture in Singapore, whereby “showing your face” in the office means you are getting work done, while those who do not are seen as less committed or worse, loafing. Face time in the office does not equate to higher productivity or level of commitment — idle chit-chat, surfing the Internet, arriving late and long lunches are ways people waste time in many offices.
When I work from home, I start work earlier as I do not have to spend time travelling (a total of two hours to-and-fro in my case) and getting dressed for work. My lunches are often very short or I would eat while working on my laptop. As I do not have to rush home to get my two children ready for bed, I can afford to work past official working hours. As such, I find that I have time to complete a lot more at home compared to working in an office.
Many mothers choose to quit their jobs to spend more time with their children in their formative years. I believe that if companies are able to work out flexible work arrangements with these mothers — be it working from home or part-time work — they would be able to retain talent and boost productivity, while mothers could afford more time with their children.
Companies should also encourage employees to work from home when they are unwell. Often, doctors do not issue medical certificates to cover the full term of sickness and employees return to work when they have not fully recovered, and risk spreading the virus to co-workers and causing more absenteeism.
Companies need to realise home-based work benefits them when it comes to retaining talent and boosting productivity and morale in the company.
I’m guessing Grace Fu hasn’t read the Institute of Policy Studies’ commentary by the four economists from the Economic Society of Singapore, despite the Today paper finally giving it coverage two weeks after it was first published on 8 February and widely shared on social media. One of the writers, Donald Low of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, had earlier condemned the Population White Paper for its lack of scholarship rigour, adding that, if it were a term paper, he would have absolutely no qualms failing it.
Or perhaps the civil servants under Ms Fu are unwilling to highlight to the busy minister a piece that rubbishes the myths promulgated by the White Paper they had painstakingly taken a year to gloss up to sell to Singaporeans. As a result, in countering the Workers’ Party’s just released Population Blue Paper, the minister continues to spout tired rhetoric about businesses suffering and Singaporeans losing jobs as a result if we limit the growth in number of foreigner workers.
A few days ago, The Straits Times also carried an opinion piece by Linda Lim, a Singaporean professor of strategy at the Ross School of Business at University of Michigan, one of the top US MBA schools. Similarly, she raised doubts on the myth that fewer foreign workers will hurt growth and jobs. In particular, she questioned the accepted belief that we require hordes of foreign workers to build HDB flats in the construction industry, which in the US is a high-wage, high-skill, capital-intensive industry. So what we are seeing now is an increasing number of experts who are similarly tired of the PAP’s lack of fresh ideas, and taking turns to voice out against the flawed ideologies that it continues to champion.
To be honest, a lot of what these academics have written, other than being more coherently put across, are no different from what netizens, bloggers, opposition parties, and even former top civil servants such as Lim Chong Yah and Ngiam Tong Dow have said for the longest time — that businesses failing as a result of an over-reliance on cheap foreign labour is part of an economic restructuring that the country has to go through, better now than later, and that the results do not necessarily mean that Singaporean workers are worse off. The difference is that when these arguments are put across by netizens or opposition parties, they carry little weight and are shot down as hollow talk that fail to recognise the pains our SMEs are going through.
This continued discussion on the Population White Paper is an embarrassment to all the PAP MPs for their five days of empty debate where there was considerable lip service of empathy to the plights of Singaporeans but none of them, save for maybe Inderjit Singh, questioning the underlying economic assumptions behind the Paper. We are thus led to believe that either none of these MPs had bothered to speak to experts outside the government machinery, or they simply chose to ride along the party idea wagon. On its part, the Workers’ Party could have consulted members of academia and think tanks such as the IPS before the debate to inject more intellectual protein into what it said in parliament. It might be pleasantly surprised to find an increasing number of such people willing to supply it ammunition.
Our ministers are not fools, of course, and they constantly face increasing resistance from business lobby groups such as the Singapore Business Federation and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises. Check out this simpleGoogle News search and see all the news articles that come up on threats of failing businesses or companies moving out of the country. Naturally, it is the SBF and ASME’s job to safeguard the interests of the business community, but this is an area the government has to remain strong enough to stand against if it truly feels that tightening foreign labour is the right way to go. In his book The Price of Inequality, economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote that such rent-seeking behaviour from business and political lobby groups are one of the top causes of income inequality in society.
The Sunday Times today carried on its front page a picture of the CEO of Jumbo group waiting tables in one of his restaurants as a result of the labour crunch. I’m not sure he will be getting much sympathy from Singaporeans. For me, the message from the subsequent articles are simplistic and one-dimensional: diners are paying the price with poorer service, longer waits and higher prices as a result of a tightening of foreign labour. In short, you asked for it!
The paper highlighted the closure of TungLok’s Lao Beijing outlet at Tiong Bahru Plaza with a sign outside that explains that it has to close due to severe manpower shortage, as if to remind Singaporeans that it’s our fault for complaining of too many foreigners. We should be asking if these restaurant groups have over-expanded during the days of cheap foreign labour availability and are now paying the price. Over the years, they have reaped countless benefits of course. No matter what, what is happening now is something Darwin would have approved of and there’s no point trying to protect these businesses as the four economists have pointed out.
However, there seems no escaping the fact that it will become more expensive to eat out in coming years, whether in restaurants or hawker centres. Sure, productivity gains could help reduce the need for workers and allow operators to pay staff more, but it won’t completely offset rising costs. Right now, we have a first world economy with developing world cost of dining out, sustained artificially by cheap foreign labour. Something has to give if we really want to arrest the growth of foreign worker intake and encourage more Singaporeans take up these F&B jobs.
But, similar to what the four economists pointed out when talking about healthcare spending, the higher dining prices you pay will go toward higher salaries for Singaporeans working in these restaurants, which goes toward addressing the income gap. So don’t complain too much when that happens, okay? Who knows, maybe if we eat at home more instead of dining out so often, our birth rates will also go up!
.
Void Decker
* The writer is a born and bred Singaporean currently residing in London, England with his lovely wife. Despite the rather unfortunate solemn face and reserved disposition, he has much to say on sociopolitical issues that continue to plague his beloved homeland. He blogs at http://www.voiddecker.com.
Yong Teck Lee (YTL) YTL berpendapat Sabah adalah untuk orang Sabah. Ramai berpendapat bahawa PBS kalah kerana pengundi hantu. Namun fakta sebenarnya PBS dalam pilihanraya peringkat negeri kalah akibat virus lompat party yang diketuai oleh Anwar Ibrahim !.
Sesuatu yang ANEH berlaku. Setelah penubuhan Suruhanjaya Siasatan DiRaja (RCI) dan siasatan dilakukan, kenapa Lim Kit Siang dan Yong Teck Lee SENYAP?
Mereka senyap kerana hasil siasatan Suruhanjaya Siasatan DiRaja (RCI) mendapati bahawa penambahan mendadak penduduk adalah dari etnik Cina. Sangkaan ramai ialah mereka dari etnik Cina yang berasal dari Filipina atau pemastautin haram yang tiada dokumen pengenalan.
Kebanyakan IC diberikan ke atas pemastautin Malaysia (dari Malaysia Barat?) yang sudah lama bermastautin di Sabah tanpa mempunyai IC...sila rujuk dan google berita tentang kehilangan pelancung Cina pada kadar yang sangat tinggi setiap setahun di Malaysia.
Dan ini dapatan RCI yang amat dirisaukan- jumlah tertinggi pemberian IC dari tahun 1963-2012 ialah kepada warga yang berasal dari Tanah Besar China sebanyak 13,556 orang!. Ini tidak termasuk warga yang berasal dari Hong Kong berjumlah 1,981 orang!
Suruhanjaya Siasatan DiRaja (RCI) akan bersambung selepas 27 February 2013. Apakah Yong Teck Lee akan berhenti menyalak seperti berhenti menyalaknya Lim Kit Siang setelah mengetahui banyaknya warga Cina yang menjadi warga instant di Sabah? Dan kenapa media Sabah memounyai gag order berkenaan perkara ini? Siapakah yang MENGAWAL Media di Sabah???
Saksikan pendedahan Another Brick On The Wall dalam Bahasa Inggeris seterusnya:
Lim Kit Siang was making a big fuzz over the initial revelation that quite a sizeable number of Filipino residing in Sabah was given blue IC. Many parties was trying to blame it on Tun Dr Mahathir.
Tun Dr Mahathir rebutted to say that if he was bad for issuing IC to Filipinos, then Tunku Abdul Rahman is worse for issuing one million IC. It did not permanently silenced the opposition but after their lame rebuttals, it was sufficient to stop further attack on Dr Mahathir.
In Sabah, Dato Yong Teck Lee's SAPP are going on a "Sabah for Sabahan" mode like Dr Jeffrey Kitingan's STAR are making a big issue of the RCI finsings despite revealed information to dispell allegations of BN rigging the electoral roll with new citizens to win over Sabah from PBS in 1994.
The crux of the allegations should be directed at corrupt National Registration Department officials that was held under Internal Security Act (ISA). PBS did not lost from the alleged electoral roll change but PBS state assemblymen frogging over to Barisan Nasional as orchestrated by master frogger, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
RCI is due to be reconvene on Wednesday, February 27th. Will Teck Lee still be playing the RCI issue after this posting?
This blogger received an e-mail from his Sabah source that was closely following the RCI in Sabah. It contains some revealing information that was presented to the RCI. Surprisingly, it was not played up by the mainstream media in Sabah.
It only strengthen the suspicion [read past posting here] that Sabah media are not being professional in their reporting of the RCI and are trying to hold back information. One wonder who owns and work for the newspapers and radios in Sabah.
The information was a submission from the Ministry of Domestic Affair contains statistics of issued ICs for Sabah and number of according to country of origin and ethnicity from 1963-2012.
The first Table 1 below is the number of issued ICs, those still living and those died:
The figure for 1964 to 2012 shows the total issued blue ICs are 66,682 in which 59,726 are still living and not reported to have died.
This differs vastly to previous claims of 73,000 to 200,000 of blue ICs issued in the tumultous years prior to and after 1994, the year PBS was ousted. Not to mention is the claim by a University Professor that Sabah population increased drastically at a certain years.
So does the mytical numbers been bandied around for real?
The second table provides information on the number of issued ICs in accordance to place of origin:
In this figure, it shows that the highest number of ICs are issue to immigrants who are based from Malaysia at 38,214. This are likely those immigrants already residing in Malaysia and most likely are stateless but was not issued ICs.
One could assume that the majority are Filipinos from Southern Phillipines. There is probably Chinese and other ethnics.
The highest other country of origin other than from within Malaysia are China at 13,556. This excludes those from Hong Kong at 1,981. Read more anotherbrickinwall-project-ic-for-chinese.
Singapore is a rather unique country in many ways.
One unique aspect is the significant levels of cross-border population inflow. It grants of tens of thousands of permanent residency a year. Significant numbers of residents marry non-residents.
In the light of these, does the total fertility rate truly reflect the country’s fertility rate?
Total Fertility Rate Defined
Total fertility rate is defined as the average number of live births each woman would have during her reproductive years if she were to experience the age-specific fertility rates prevailing during the period. It is expressed as number of children per woman.
TFR is based on the number of babies born during a specific year to resident mothers.
New residents
If a woman gives birth to children before she is granted residency in, for example, 2012, these children are not, and cannot, be included in TFR for 2012.
The impact on TFR may not be significant if the number of people granted residency yearly is small vis-à-vis the total population, but Singapore granted residency to about 270,000 individuals between 2007 and 2011 (excluding double counting the cases in which citizenship was granted to permanent residents). In comparison, the resident population below the age of 50 years was about 2.6 million in June 2012.
Overseas Singaporeans
Singaporeans living overseas are not part of Singapore’s de jure population, and babies born to Singaporeans living overseas are not included in TFR.
There were about 200,000 overseas Singaporeans as at June 2012. Of these, 9,200 were below the age of 5 years. This number had increased steadily from 7,600 in 2008. It is not clear, however, how many of these young citizens were born overseas (and therefore not included in the TFR of the respective years in which they were born).
Separately, about 2,000 children were granted citizenship upon registration by their parents last year. Presumably, each of these children was born outside Singapore and at least one of his/her parents is a citizen.
New Residents and Returning Singaporeans Born Overseas
Let’s estimate the impact of new residents bringing in already-born children and Singaporeans returning from overseas.
Census of Population 2010 showed that 18,358 residents below the age of 5 years and 29,844 residents aged between 5 years and 9 years were born outside Singapore.
Non-Resident Mothers
A citizen or permanent resident baby is not included in TFR if the mother is not a resident.
There were 25,344 resident marriages (i.e., at least one spouse is a citizen or permanent resident) in 2011. Of these, 5,490 were between a non-resident bride with a citizen groom and 1,066 were between a non-resident bride with a permanent resident groom. That is, 25.9 per cent of resident marriages were between non-resident brides and resident grooms.
If any of these non-resident brides are not granted residency by the time their children are born, their babies are not included in TFR (and neither would the mothers).
Conclusion
In the light of the significant number of individuals granted residency annually, the significant number of overseas Singaporeans and the significant percentage of marriages between residents and non-residents, Singapore’s TFR possibly under-estimates the country’s “true” fertility rate.
While Singapore cannot unilaterally redefine TFR, Department of Statistics can, and should, develop additional measures of fertility, taking into account the country’s significant levels of cross-border people movement.
The broadest measure of Singapore’s fertility rate will still be below 2.1, but at least it will not be as dismal as 1.2. It will also be more realistic. And, it will help policy planners make better decisions.
This is the period where much abuse against human rights is happening and where everyone turns a blind eye.
I am referring to the BIG FOUR Accounting Firms who are guilty of the following:
Over-working their Staff to meet deadlines. Some work from 8am till 3am . Some work without sleep.
How does this help our country to have a work-life balance ? How to make babies ? What happened to labour laws ?
In order to comply with strict budget guidelines, claims for overtime are frowned upon. Preference is given to foreign staff as they are cheaper.
Singaporeans are paid the same rate which is equivalent to S-Pass rate under the disguise of “training”. “Interns” are hired and abused openly.
How does this help the Singapore Core ? Is this not a regulated system of abuse ?
It is strange that these same companies while acting as consultants to many companies seem to be quite incapable of solving their own HR and wages problem !
.
3rd Generation Citizen
Editor’s note: We have sent emails to the audit firms for comments. We have also copied TAFEP and MOM.
Warren Fernandez is a very powerful man in ST, in shaping opinions of the paper and its influence on its readers. He is writing quite regularly now and the White Paper and the immigrant issue are hot topics to involve him personally and directly. He wrote another piece on Sunday about how the people were so stupid not to see the ageing problems and how the able Govt was working so hard to do the necessary. He did not ask why a super talented Govt, paid the highest in the world, could not nip this problem in the bud and allowing it to grow and become a national crisis? He did not ask why after importing nearly 2m people in slightly more than a decade into the island did not help at all, did not alleviate the ageing problem but instead added to the problem. Would adding more immigrants solve the problem in the future or would it just be like now, add into the problem to create an even bigger problem to be relieved by even bigger population later on, the perfect Ponzi solution?
Was Warren Fernandez writing in his personal capacity, or in the capacity of the top guy in ST, or was he speaking as a representative of the official view, a Govt view? The gist of his article can be summed up by these few paragraphs.
‘Some have begun to mouth empty slogans such as “Singapore for Singaporeans” or “born and bred Singaporeans”. There was even on outlandish posting on Facebook calling for “ethnic cleansing of FTs from Singapore”…The idea is absurd. Where would we draw the line separating “born and bred” Singaporeans from others to be spurned – 1965? If so, many of us would have to disavow our own parents or grandparents as interlopers. Or should we push it back to 1819? In that case, most of us, except for a few Malay families, would have to pack up and ship out to wherever our ancestors came from.’
From these two paragraphs, it is very clear where he is coming from. Rubbishing ideas like “Singapore for Singaporeans” or “born and bred Singaporeans” are as good as telling the Sinkies to go fuck off, there is no such things as true blue Singaporeans. Anyone given a pink IC is a Singaporean. This is the official view I am sure. The Govt is planning to bring in more foreigners to be given the pink IC to be counted as Singaporeans. Who cares about born and bred Singaporeans? This is high falutin surely, an aspiration only for those who think they are true blue Singaporeans. Sinkies better get use to it.
The idea of true blue Sinkies is absurd. Really? The people in Hong Lim will disagree. They know and regard themselves as true blue Sinkies. That’s why they came, with no fear of rain or lightning. There are Sinkies that do not want to acknowledge the true blue Sinkies. They are entitled to their opinion. Warren added with the fake ignorance of small boy argument about where to start, 1965, 1819, or may I add to make it more ridiculous, from Adam and Eve. This is the same kind of evasive thought like what Tan Chuan Jin said in Parliament. How to define a true blue Singaporean? Where to start, so difficult leh. When super talents find it difficult, it must be really difficult ya?
Is that so, or just a denial, refusing to want to look at it? Why don’t apply the mean testing formula? I think it will work quite well with a little modification. Personally I find the mean testing formula hideous and wicked, but when the Govt wants to do it, whatever nonsensical formula, even the raising of GST to help the poor will be good and logical.
I don’t think it is so difficult to define what is a true blue Singaporean and not having to kick the butts of our parents and grandparents into the shit hole in doing so. As a Singaporean, I am offended by anyone who rubbishes the idea of a true blue Singaporean. Our parents and grand parents did not build this country for foreigners to take advantage of our children and grandchildren. We have to take care of ourselves and our future generations. It is for them that this country exists for. Otherwise everything we do is foolish, useless and futile, especially NS.
And in order to protect our future children, the descendants of true blue Sinkies, you see, I refuse to define what this means because all true blue Sinkies understand what it means except those who refuse to want to know. We must know who we are. We are Singaporeans by birth and by long residence and commitments to this country. We are no longer passing by, we are stayers, not quitters. We are the owners of this island. This is home to true blue Singaporeans, not to fair weather economic migrants.
Does Warren Fernandez believe in ‘Singapore for Singaporeans’ and in true blue or born and bred Singaporeans? He said these were empty slogans. Does the govt believe in true blue Singaporeans or not? Or shall there be a new slogan, Singapore is an international city for people all over the world, not only for Singaporeans.
What do you think?
Article by Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean on his blog My Singapore News.
AWARE welcomes the inclusive Budget but why are family caregivers still unrecognised?
We are heartened by the focus in this year’s Budget Speech on making Singapore a more inclusive society. In particular we welcome the commitment to reducing income inequalities and promoting social mobility.
The doubling to $3bn of spending on pre-school facilities over the next five years is a long overdue step to ensure that every child has an equal start in life. Having good, affordable and conveniently located pre-school facilities is a critical factor in getting women who have had children to return to the workforce, and in persuading others to have children. Expanding afterschool availability is also commendable.
AWARE is heartened that the Ministry of Health will be doing a thorough review of healthcare financing in Singapore with a view to lowering the out of pocket amounts to be paid by individuals. We further call on the Minister of Health to prioritise chronic care management and to consider instituting comprehensive health insurance that covers all persons, without discriminating against those who are unemployed or are low waged.
We are glad that a proportion of the approximately 200,000 families who currently hire foreign domestic workers (FDW) will benefit from the lowering of the concessionary maid levy from $170 to $120. This reduction of the concessionary maid levy will not benefit poorer families who are not able to afford hiring a FDW in the first place, including those where family members are themselves unpaid and unrecognised caregivers.
AWARE calls for greater support for women who have left or stayed out of the workforce due to their caregiving responsibilities. Ministry of Manpower figures show that as many as 68 percent of women who are not in the workforce identify caregiving responsibilities as the reason why they are not doing paid work.
While we applaud the Government for co-funding 40% of wage increases for Singaporean employees over the next 3 years, as part of the wage credit scheme (WCS), we are nevertheless concerned that only 58 percent of women are currently in the labour force. Concrete measures to expand the female labour force participation rate are needed to ensure that women who are not employed do not get increasingly marginalised in a progressively upgraded economy. The budget was silent on the provision of incentives for promoting flexible work arrangements.
Read AWARE’s full recommendations to the Singapore Budget 2013 here.
Read AWARE’s submissions to the National Population and Talent Division on Marriage and Parenthood Trends here.
More increments in foreign worker levies across the board and a complementary cut in foreign worker quotas for the services and marine sectors will, no doubt, further raise the level of anxiety for affected businesses.
We suspect it won’t be long before we hear from another restaurant pointing out how no Singaporeans turned up for job interviews for waiters.
Although the tightening of foreign worker supply has stoked a buzz in recent weeks, one should not read these measures as being xenophobic. Rather, as the Finance Minister put it, the key emphasis is on reducing reliance on manpower — as opposed to merely replacing foreign workers with locals — in order to “catch up from a decade of slow productivity growth”.
Probably the thought on the minds of many, is whether the underlying message to businesses is to “shape up or ship out”. Or perhaps move offshore while retaining some core functions in Singapore (indeed, help is pledged to small and medium enterprises expanding their overseas footprints).
While this could well be the case (indeed, another minister’s recent written reply to a parliamentary question states that “businesses that cannot restructure and adapt ... may eventually close down”), one wonders whether some sectors, in fact, deserve a greater helping hand.
Take the services industry, like food and beverage, for example. Any further weakening could have a knock-on effect on travel and tourism statistics, a not-insignificant part of our gross domestic product.
Despite the recent announcements of infrastructural link-ups, it will take a while to persuade people to have their next fancy meal in Iskandar.
PAIN ALLEVIATION
There are, of course, many aspects of the Budget aimed at countering the painful effects in this phase of restructuring the economy.
Some, such as the new Wage Credit Scheme, will clearly be of help to many businesses. Other than subsidising the future wage increases of Singaporean employees, it has the benefit of supporting both the SME employer as well as the larger MNC player.
And not surprisingly, given its prominence in the last few Budgets, the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme continues to be given tweaks. The current variant is a PIC bonus, where a dollar-for-dollar matching cash bonus (capped at a certain level) will be given to the extent that PIC qualifying expenditure exceeds S$5,000 per year of assessment.
More changes to the PIC scheme are reflected in the annexes to the Budget statement, and it is heartening that some of these changes reflect business practicalities — such as an indication that equipment that is a “basic tool” can qualify for PIC as long as it increases productivity.
In addition, the tried and tested corporate tax rebate will find its way back (as it has done a few times over the last decade or so) to help businesses again. This time, a corporate income tax rebate of 30 per cent, subject to a cap, has been announced for three years of assessment rather than for just one year.
It may be sending a telling sign to the rest of the world that this rebate, coupled with other tax features, means that a small profitable company with S$300,000 of taxable income will, in fact, have an effective tax rate of no more than 5.9 per cent, despite a headline rate of 17 per cent.
David Sandison is a Partner and Loh Eng Kiat a Senior Manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers Services LLP.
It was Budget Day and many carrots were handed out.
But most folks I know zoomed in on the two new rules for purchasing new cars:
1. The new MAS rulings for car loans, capped at 60 per cent for OMV less than $20K, and 50 per cent for OMV more than $20K. Car loans are now capped at a tenure of five years.
2. The new tiered Additional Registration Fee (ARF) which increases the tax on luxury cars by up to 180 per cent, versus 100 per cent for low capacity car models. According to Today: “The ARF for cars with OMVs up to S$20,000 will remain at the current 100 per cent, but two more tiers will be introduced for more expensive models. The next S$30,000 of the OMV of the car will attract an ARF rate of 140 per cent, and any value beyond S$50,000 will attract an ARF rate of 180 per cent.”
The knee jerk reactions came Fast and Furious :
- Car dealers opening their showrooms till midnight for one last desperate lunge at buyers. The question is how many impulse buys were there last night? Once again, it looks like more car salesmen are about to lose their jobs as more buyers are squeezed out of the market.
- On any Facebook stream, you can see two clear reactions: “It’s about time!” vs “Another policy to favor the rich!”. It’s also obvious who is cash-rich and who isn’t, based on the comments.
- Speculation among the more car-savvy folks on how much the COE will drop due to this. Personally, I’m guessing 20-50 per cent drop over six months as the market of buyers shrink. The question is: Of the people who are interested in spending over $200K on a new car, how many of them are cash rich?
Don’t be hating me okay… but I think the Gahmen’s latest measures on tiered ARF tax and cap on car loans are logical and sensible ways of controlling the car population.
Some may think that this favors the rich, but not really, since the rich are taxed more on luxury cars now. Sure, it’s not going to stop a millionaire from buying his Porsche, but it does make the average Joe looking to buy a BMW think a bit harder about his purchase.
The latest policies favor the financially prudent who know how to accumulate cash for a rainy day. For too long, people have forgotten the virtue of saving cold hard cash, relying instead on loans and credit, and spending more than their means. Even if the COE price doesn’t drop much, at least this is sound public policy that will appease those who have been unhappy about the current COE system and have been asking for alternatives (which have been soundly rejected by the Transport Ministry repeatedly).
It also sends a very explicit message to young people just starting out in their careers that owning a car is not a given, but a luxury item. The 2000s were a period when COE prices were low (I got mine at under $5,000 in 2009) due to wrong projections of COE deregistrations, and many young people could afford cars then. Since then, there have been one corrective action after another by the authorities to reverse the over-supply of COE in the market, and this looks like the most potent move yet.
More interestingly, the latest move on capping car loans comes from the Monetary Authority of Singapore because it wants to “safeguard against borrowers defaulting on their repayments” and encouraging financial prudence.
Now how many people have defaulted on their car loans recently? That would be a newsworthy number to know. If the number is low, maybe the G folks should just say it straight: “We don’t want you to borrow money for a car you can’t afford.”
In less than 5 years, the MRT system has suffered more than a dozen breakdowns and disruptions, affecting several hundred thousand commuters. There are also increasingly annoying slow and stop start train movement suffered by the MRT, and to top it up, bumpy ride and subsequent the sleeper replacement exercise which has affected resident’s sleep!
However, since independence, during SBS’s business years, there has not been even a single major disruption of our buses.
It is time we get rid of the unreliable MRT system and build a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) for our pubic transport needs. Instead of allocating 100 billion dollars of public funds by 2030 to double our MRT network, Lui Tuck Yew (or his opposition replacement) can consider building a BRT system instead.
We can build private highways for buses to run on, so that they won’t have to be affected by traffic jams.
Advantages and costs will be explained below:
1. Reliability
The key flaw of the MRT system is that there is only one lane per direction. If only one train breaks down, the remaining trains will be unable to pass, and the whole line prior to that will shut down. That is what is responsible for the 220,000 commuters affected during December 2011, when only 5 trains broke down with a total capacity of 10,000.
However, roads can have multiple lanes. If one bus breaks down, other buses can simply bypass it, ensuring that the chance of a major disruption is minimal.
2. Capacity
Given a headway of 2 minutes, and a capacity of 2000 , an MRT line can at most transport 60,000 commuters an hour*. Intervals cannot be reduced much below 2 minutes due to the fact that trains have to stop for 1 minute at every station, and the enormous braking distances of heavy trains.
However, buses can be spaced out as minimally as possible, in fact, it is even possible to run them as closely as the vehicles on our expressway. I have seen cars following buses at a distance of a 2 seconds or less on the PIE.
Assuming a headway of 5 seconds, the 150 capacity SBS Dennis Trident Vehicle, and 3 lanes, a BRT highway can handle a capacity of 324,000 passengers per hour*, more than 5 times that of MRT. If BRT is implemented, we might no longer have to stand on the bus/MRT.
*Formula : lanes x (1 hour/headway) x capacity
3. Flexibility
While MRT lines are strictly linear, Buses can leave the BRT highway and go onto our present roads,and onto other BRT highways, enhancing connectivity. Because MRT lines are linear, passengers have the hassle of walking a hundred metres or so between interchanges, which waste time and inconveniences the elderly and disabled.
Buses can be added and removed from the highway at real time to cater for demand, unlike MRT where the huge cumbersome depots mean that MRT trains can only be deployed slowly, and take a long time to redistribute themselves across the line (e.g if the depot is in Bishan, Jurong East will only enjoy increased frequency 1 hour later).
Also, multiple services can be designated for BRT, an express service, which stops only at end points at interchanges for fast and high capacity travel, a town link service, which stops only once every few stops, and a intra-town service, which stops at every stop. In contrast, MRT trains must strictly stop at every station, in spite of demand,decreasing efficiency and increasing travel time.
4. Waiting and Travel Time
At present, MRT spends 1 minute out of every 2:30min travel time at stations (according to my stopwatch). In contrast, an Express BRT service during peak hours need only stop at endpoints. This represents a 30% decrease in travelling time for BRT, assuming speeds are the same.
On top of that, since the uncertainty of private cars on BRT highways are removed, the speed limit of Buses can be raised, should they be spaced far enough. If the speed is raised to 100kmh, another 40% of travel time can be saved.
And further still, because the headway for buses is minimal, the waiting time for buses is also minimal compared to trains. In Taiwan, one BRT bus arrives every 15 seconds at bus stops, compared to 2 minutes for our present MRT (and 5 minutes or more at non peak)
To sum all the time savings up, for an equivalent 1 hour (+3 minutes waiting time) journey on the MRT , a journey on the express service BRT will take approximately 22 minutes, comparable to that of a car.
5. Costs And Land Use
Unlike MRT lines which requires dedicated land set aside for stations, and must be build exclusively underground nowadays, we can re-designate existing roads as BRT highways, and build viaducts on top of existing roads.
We have already built viaducts in Keppel, West Coast and Serangoon roads. This can easily be expanded to accommodate a wider network. Ideally, a BRT viaduct can be built on top of every through road and expressway in Singapore, to create a more extensive public transport network than even MRT.
Of course, some minor redevelopment has to be done, but if the LTA can demolish our beloved Rochor Center to construct the Downtown line, I don’t see why LTA cannot demolish the buildings in the vicinity of BRT planned roads.
And because MRT has to be built underground, infrastructural costs are a lot higher. According to the US Bureau of Construction, it costs approximately $100- $800 million per lane per km to build a tunnel in countryside to urban environments, and only $10-70 million per land per km to build a viaduct. Assuming a viaduct with 3 lanes, a BRT would cost only about $30-$210 million per km.
Additional costs have to be set aside for depots, signalling and other infrastructure for MRT, while BRTs can simply do with Highways and Bus Stops, and Garages.
Given that the 8.5km KPE tunnel section costs $1.8 billion, adjusted to $2.5 billion inflation , at 312 million per km (wikipedia), to create double our MRT network’s worth of underground expressway at 150km will only cost $57 billion (to construct viaducts will cost far less), meaning that the miscellaneous MRT costs would account for approximately $13 – $43 billion, which is a huge amount.
If we replaced our 2030 MasterPlan MRT network with BRT, we can save about $20-80 billion dollars. The money saved can be allocated to purchasing buses for the BRT (see next section), and extending our BRT network even further. The 100 billion dollar MRT masterplan allocated to construction of 150km of rail can equivalently be used to construct over 1000km of viaduct.
As for the costs of buses, they are more expensive than MRT trains, but they are affordable. To equivalently double our MRT capacity of approximately 150 trains with an average capacity of 2000,(300,000) only about 2,000 buses (of capacity 150) will have to be purchased. This compares to SMRT’s current fleet of 1000 and SBS 3000-5000, and total private bus population of 50,000 (LTA 2012 Statistics) .
Given that the $1.1 billion bus enhancement package funds , equipments and staffs 550 buses, 2000 buses will cost about $4.4 billion.
The costs to purchase the buses will be made up from the cost savings incurred by constructing BRT highways as opposed to MRT lines. A small proportion of $ 10 billion can be allocated from the savings from the MRT construction costs to purchase and equipment 10,000 buses, with equivalent capacity of 1,500,000 passengers, more than 5 times that of our MRT rolling stock.
On top of that , the cost savings from BRT can be used to subsidise the buses running on the BRT, so that fares can be less.
In summary, building a BRT has many potential benefits over extending our MRT system, with the main ones being capacity and reliability.
Should we adopt BRT as opposed to MRT, we can completely do away with our congestion problem, even if the Government proceeds with 6.9 million people, because the capacity of BRT is 5x that of MRT. And even possibly all get a seat.
We can also completely do away with our reliability problem. Buses have never endured a major disruption and it is unlikely BRT will ever endure one.
We can save over 40 minutes of travel time, 1 hour 20 minutes to and from work, which leaves us with more time to spend at home with our children or sleeping in later.
We will no longer have to wait long periods for trains, as BRT buses arrive at a frequency of only a few seconds.
We no longer have to waste time at every stop to pick up passengers, and express speed all the way to the CBD and back to our town.
Government will save a lot of taxpayer money by not having to construct unnecessary infrastructure for MRT. And from the savings, we can enjoy subsidised Bus fares.
Singapore will have a much larger and more extensive public transport network.
BRT might even become a more attractive form of transport than cars, and lure potential car owners towards public transport. Hence, our roads will become less congested and COE prices will fall.
The BRT system is vastly superior to the MRT system. Had Goh Keng Swee had his way in 1970s over the debate of bus transport vs train, we will not be stuck with this unreliable and congested MRT system.
I have written to REACH forum and Budget Feedback, with no reply, and the Straits Times Forum has censored my idea. Lui Tuck Yew will be admittedly foolish not to consider adopting a BRT over a MRT system, and wasting dozens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money on an inferior system instead.
.
Abel Tan
.
Editor’s note:
Taiwan Taichung City Building BRT
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a new type of mass transportation that achieves a service quality similar to that of MRT by using modern bus (e.g. double-section low-floor bus) to travel in the exclusive bus lane and cooperating with intellectual transportation system technology (e.g. BRT preemption signal) and the MRT operation model (closed bus shelter with platform doors — the passengers swipe their cards to enter the station for saving time to swipe cards in the car). Thus, BRT is an advanced type of exclusive bus lane.
BRT holds the advantage of low cost and short building period, and thus it is suitable to improve mass transportation trips. When the mass transportation population has achieved the amount to build MRT, the periodic task of the system is achieved and then alters to the MRT system, so BRT and MRT are not incompatible with each other.
BRT vehicles are planned to adopt the green energy system, but the climbing Dadu mountain section of Sec. 3, Taichung Port Rd. is too long for electric buses to cope with, so the section adopts Hybrid Electric Vehicle. The electrical and mechanical systems in other routes depend on the road condition, but the electric system is the top priority.
The government’s preliminary plan includes six BRT routes in central Taiwan that adopts plane BRT exclusive lane service, the total length is about 186km, and the network spreads all over the city. The current plan expects to develop the “core network” in three years and complete the “network prospect” in seven years. After the construction is complete, Taichung will be the city with the longest BRT network in Asia, and the completion of “one-hour great Taichung living area” is not too distant.
The bus network will be adjusted with the future BRT operation and the future plan includes a lot of shuttle buses. Then the mass transportation network in Taichung will be more intensive and convenient. We will also plan to carry out fare concessions, transferring concessions and bicycle parking areas to make people think that BRT is the best choice no matter they take cost or time effectiveness into consideration.
The key of successful public transportation is to establish a complete mass transportation network and connect different transportation systems in the city effectively. Development of the transportation system should be step by step, and the key of a sustainable system is to take actual demand, region characteristics and government financial condition into consideration and implant a transportation system that suit with the local condition. Currently, Taichung City is planning a suitable BRT network which not only provides high quality public transportation service in major routes but establish a complete public transportation network that provides a brand-new “seamless transportation, slow-living Taichung” image to the citizen.
Taichung was building BRT blue line , it’s will extend to six line BRT in future. Taichung BRT road map http://ppt.cc/FE9B
In this post, I have decided to address something personal instead of the usual socio-political and legal stuff. But, I guess in a way the personal is political.
Levy
Amongst the sugary stuff that is being thrown at us peasants (so that the real details of government expenditure can continue to enjoy opacity) is a reduction in the levy payable for the employment of Foreign Domestic Workers in households that have young children or elderly dependants. I have a young child and an elderly dependant. I am currently paying $170 for the levy. From 1st March 2013, this amount will be reduced to $120. The Straits Times dutifully reports that this represents savings of $600 a year.
Let's see... The street bully has been extorting $100 a month and now he has decided to take $50 a month. I am supposed to be happy that I am enjoying a saving of $600 a year. What I want to know is why has the street bully been extorting all along?
Why do we have a maid levy? Originally, it was seen as a measure to discourage families from hiring domestic workers. The levy system has not reduced the demand for nor the actual employment of foreign domestic workers. It is a practical reality that many Singaporean families face. Recognising that where both the husband and wife are working, hiring a caregiver is inevitable in situations where there are young children or elderly dependants, the government has had a system of lower levy payments of $170. This $170 is being reduced to $120.
But, why should an employer be made to pay a levy to the state under circumstances where the employer is trying to raise children? Shouldn't we be incentivised? By imposing a levy, the state is adding to the financial burdens that a couple faces when raising children. Similarly, where we seek to look after our elderly in our own homes and employ a domestic worker for this purpose, we are being penalised by the state. Under the new system, the levy payable in a year is $1440. The net effect of this system is that we are being (and we have been) taxed for providing for the care of our children and the elderly.
Quite apart from the fact that the state is generating revenue out of concerned families that seek to cater for elderly parents and young children, the payment of a levy for all domestic workers is itself questionable. If the idea is to make it costly for employers to employ a domestic worker and thereby to discourage such employment, then instead of the state turning this into a revenue generating exercise, a minimum wage for domestic workers could be implemented. I'd rather pay the amount represented by the levy to my helper instead of to the state. So, instead of paying for example $450 to the domestic worker and $265 (or $170)for the levy, I'd prefer to pay $715 directly to her.
With minimum salary requirements already in place for domestic workers, there is no harm in absorbing the levy payment as part of the minimum wage. I believe that, moving forward, we should scrap the levy system and institute a minimum wage for domestic workers.
GST
My mother-in-law had a fall last year and the resulting fracture saw her being hospitalised for about a month and being moved to a nursing home for step down care. She has been at the nursing home for about 3 1/2 months and we just brought her back home. The total nursing home charges have come up to $13,510. This is inclusive of the GST charged. The GST works out to be slightly more than $880. Why am I paying this tax to the state?
One problem with the GST system is that the imposition of this tax is universal without regard to the nature of the goods and services being rendered. Why do we need to pay a tax in relation the receiving medical services? So that the state can continually generate revenue at the expense of citizens' misfortune?
I guess, in the end this is not exactly a personal rant. The personal is political.
The recent protest by an estimated 4,000 Singaporeans, against government plans to increase the city state's population largely through immigration, may not have been large by Hong Kong standards.
Yet in Singapore, where open political expression is greatly restricted, it was deeply significant. And it reflects a larger process of political change that has been unfolding in recent years. Essentially, Singapore is more politicised, with more citizens becoming politically engaged.
There are many reasons for this. Most significantly, steady increases in the cost of living and relatively slow or stagnant increases in wages at lower ends of the labour market have led to tangible declines in living standards. Singapore is now the third most expensive city in Asia, after Tokyo and Osaka, and Singaporeans, who work among the longest hours each week, are hard pressed to keep up.
By some measures, it has a high degree of social inequality, exceeded only by Hong Kong. Though Singapore is a wealthy society, a recent Gallup poll found Singaporeans to be the unhappiest of those in 148 countries, behind Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
The anger of many Singaporeans is directed at the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power since 1959 and continues to dominate parliament. Traditionally, the PAP leadership has said it would not bend to populist pressures. Opposition to its rule has been severely repressed.
Repression is perhaps tolerable amid economic growth. Yet the perceived lack of improvement in the lives of many average Singaporeans over recent years has changed things. In the last general election in 2011, the ruling party suffered its worst setback since independence with the highest number of opposition members elected to parliament. While it still received 60.1 per cent of the popular vote, the negative trend was clear and the government has made some changes.
However, they have so far been insufficient as witnessed in two recent by-elections, which were both won by the opposition Workers' Party. The PAP's grip on power is effectively being challenged.
The recent protest signals the growing desire for greater participation in politics. Much of this change has unfolded in cyberspace, which Singaporeans use to mobilise participants.
Old means of repression are less effective. The state still curtails expression through a variety of means. Yet Singaporeans are less docile than in the past. A growing number are daring to challenge state power. Politics in Singapore may yet become more competitive, plural and responsive to the people. That would be a positive move for Singapore.
I worked in China for many years. When I first arrived, I thought I can integrate into their society easily as we are all Chinese.
However, after a few years I discover that it is not possible as they are totally different from us. They only look Chinese. There is little Chinese value in them. I will like to share one key different between the China culture and the rest of the world, including Singapore. In most countries, eye witness account is the most reliable testimony for any crime or wrong doing. However, in China, eyewitness account is of little value. Why, because everyone lie. In the China court system, to convict anyone they either force a confession out of them or catch them red handed. Another different is that there is no concept of forgiveness in China, as such the case of a guy admitting to a crime to earn leniency is not relevant in China. Basically if you admit, then they hang you right away. Under such system, nobody in his right sense of mind will ever admit to a crime.
Take the case of new citizen Li YM who went to make a police report that he did not post the offending post fit in to the above culture. He is simply behaving like a PRC Chinese. He will never admit to a crime as he believed by admitting he will be hang right away. 60 years of communist rule has totally destroyed Chinese culture in China. That is why mainland Chinese can never be integrated into any culture in the world. They have the same problem in Hongkong. Singapore is no exception.
I believe it is a grave mistake to allow so many FTs and new citizens from PRC here. It will quickly destroy our own culture we will become a mainland China culture, ie communist culture.
As someone said, “There are no more Chinese in China”. How true.
In my last article on our population conundrum, I wrote about how the government was obsessed with using population expansion as the way of generating economic growth, whilst neglecting to raise the levels of labour productivity. I also mentioned that there will eventually come a time when our population hits the limits of our country’s carrying capacity, and further growth would become impossible. When that happens, the Singapore growth miracle would collapse like a house of cards because that is what it truly is.
In this article, I would like to question the government’s priorities and motives with regards toperpetually importing waves of foreigners but neglecting to take steps to stop our brain drain and stem the depletion of our own local talent.
In the past two or three decades, Singaporeans have become more socially mobile and more globalized. Many Singaporeans have decided to leave our shores, often permanently.
There have been many factors contributing to this steady brain drain in which many of our best and brightest leave every year to make a life elsewhere with little thought of returning.
Some have decided to emigrate to spare their children the painful stress of going through our education system, especially with the emphasis on rote learning, cramming the students’ schedule to the brim with assignments, projects, and extra-curricular activities, and forcing students to master two languages in a mind-numbingly competitive examination environment.
Other have decided to emigrate because they saw quite simply that the Singapore market was too small and too shallow, and would not offer them the business opportunities and entrepreneurial challenge that would effectively harness their own abilities.
One of the measures introduced in the 2013 Budget that will come down hard on the people is the control of car ownership. It hits the people in two ways, higher ARF, lower loan allowed and lesser time to repay. On face value many Sinkies aspiring to own a car as a convenient mode of transport will have red faces and veins protruding from their necks. Those that really need a car for business, for ferrying little ones or ancient ones, or physically difficult ones, will be less forgiving. I am expecting a public outcry on this alone.
But putting the anger and disappointment aside, not buying a car is really a good thing. Really, trust me. Look, this is a depreciating asset that will run out of value in 10 years. It runs out faster than the 99 year HDB flats. Why pay so much for it? Further, public transportation is so cheap, convenient and efficient. There is no need for a private car.
And with the prices of cars getting only more expensive, taxi fares, even if they go up, will still be so much cheaper. There are plenty of rooms to raise taxi fares as there is a big gap between the fares here and the big cities. So enjoy the cheap taxi fares when you can before someone claims so hard to get a cab.
Actually the Govt is doing the people a big favour by discouraging those that cannot afford to buy cars not to buy one. Too expensive lah. But if you can afford it, can pay for higher ARF and put up bigger cash payments, ok lah, go for it.
Many people will be saving a lot of money for not buying cars. It is like people saving money by not going to eat in restaurant. It would be different if people don’t eat or can’t afford to eat in order to save some money. Eat they must, just like some people cannot move without cars. For such desperate cases, just too bad. Sure the Govt will empathise with them, hand over heart. No, cannot say if cannot afford cars take public transport lah. This is a cruel thing to say. Politically incorrect. By the way, with another 1.6m talented foreigners coming in, they too will need cars. Let them pay the COEs and ARF and the Govt can redistribute to the needy citizens. Good huh.
The quality of life sure will not be affected, just like living in smaller flats will not affect the quality of life as well. Think quality of life will be better as promise in the White Paper.
Article by Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean on his blog My Singapore News.
To further curb hiring of unskilled foreigners, the $650 levy for every worker beyond the approved number for a building project has been upped to $950. Has Armageddon been averted? Or are the pruning measures too late in the implementation?
In "Dubai, The Story of the World's Fastest City" author Jim Krane writes that 95% of Dubaians are foreigners, and there were only about 100,000 citizens among the city's 2 million inhabitants in 2009. But swarming immigration extends beyond Dubai, and has left Emrati citizens a minority in every one of the United Arab Emirates' seven emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman,Umm Al-Quwain, Fujairah and Ras Al-Khaimah). The million or so UAE citizens make up about 15% of the country's total population of around 6 million. In the UAE, citizenship is guarded "like a vault of nuclear fuel rods". Residents who never took nationality after 1971 have no citizenship at all. That's one way to maintain the nationality core.
When the Sharjah Radio host Mohammed Khalaf dedicated a week of his daily talk show on the touchy subject in May 2008, the responses echo the sentiments of our own citizenry. Khalaf started by asking his guest, UAE university professor Ebtisam al-Kitbi, whether she thought Emratis might disappear: "It is reality. Today we face an invasion of millions of people coming to us from abroad to stay. They have no intention of leaving this country. As result, our existence is threatened."
Al-Kitbi dismissed callers who suggested she was exaggerating: "Today the locals can't find plots of land to build their houses, while you are selling entire areas to foreigners. The person responsible for this should be punished. No matter how high-ranking they are, these people should be punished."
Another guest, president of the Arab Family Organisation Jamal al-Bah, "totally agreed": "We have too many foreigners competing with us for work, education, even marriage. Our girls are finding it difficult to get married because of the expatriate girls. We are like a ship lost at sea. ...We need to do something before it's too late."
Khalaf took a call from an agitated Emrati man. "You are pouring salt into our wounds. You're making us cry. I am telling you that if this situation does not change, I will leave the country in the next three years and I vow never to return." The caller starts weeping and hangs up. (page 260)
Powerful stuff. If our mainstream media were not so thoroughly emasculated, that would be the true tone of the national conversation.
Ad phrase for Singapore states “Surprising Singapore” and yes, Singapore will provide you with surprises but perhaps unpleasant surprise of racism may be last thing you had in mind.
I am an Indian national and I am writing here to express my concerns regarding the racist experiences I felt from Chinese Singaporeans during my Singapore Trip recently. The Chinese Singaporeans are never willing to assist an Indian asking for directions and you are made to feel as not welcome. I am sure they will react differently to other travellers. I experienced a rudely reacting Bus driver when I mentioned I do not have the exact change and thankfully an Indian passenger came to rescue. If the driver could have said it in a proper manner it would not had mattered at all.
Chinese Singaporeans seem rude and always ready for a fight at a drop of a hat. This instance happened when I took a bus from Singapore to Genting highlands in Malaysia (Bus was of Sri Maju transport departing from Golden Mile Complex, Singapore). Bus after entering Malaysia halted for a while at a point for refreshments and I also got down.
When I came back I saw the bus standing but the passenger entry door was closed and with the driver or attendant nowhere to be seen. Not just me but other passengers who got down was not able to get in. We waited for about 20 min in scorching cold after which the Chinese driver came at his leisurely pace. I was the first one to complain since I had waited longer even though there were other passengers who were stranded. The driver who saw an Indian complaining started abusing me in his local lingo (of course he did not know a bit of English) and somehow using his sign language mentioned that it is you who are at fault of not opening the door.
All the passengers tried open the door but was not successful. Then the driver got to know that he had mistakenly locked the door and finally he had to unlock it from inside. Even after being his fault, the driver started abusing me for no reason and when I reacted he was ready for a fight!!! I had to back off from that instance and ignored him and got into my seat. I am sure what provoked him was that an Indian complained against him and not the complaint or the fault with himself.
The indifference does not stop here, in malls or in reception of hotels or at other places, I had experienced differential treatment especially to Indians in Singapore. When I ask for food in restaurants, they are not willing even answer some genuine questions.
All the racism in a country that publicizes itself as a multi-racial, multi-religious society!! I clearly mention Chinese Singaporeans because the Indians or Malays I came across in Singapore were not discriminatory. The western tourists whom I came across were more tolerant and accommodating than the local Chinese.
I spoke to a couple of citizens of Indian origin in Singapore and they said there is racism prevailing in job sector and in housing societies too with the Chinese being preferred over Indian and Malays. There seems to be no concept of equal opportunities for all at least not in job market. One of the politicians wanted bring in Chinese immigrants over other nationalities and make Mandarin the predominant language.
A note to mention here, I went to Genting highlands and Kuala lampur in Malaysia. Genting seems to be a la Singapore with majority Chinese tourists there but definitely the treatment was better. In Kuala lampur, the people were extremely hospitable , welcoming and willing to assist. I would give a thumbs up for hospitality from people of
Malaysia and total thumbs down for Chinese Singaporeans for their racist attitude.
Indian Visitor
Editor's Note: Please keep it to a healthy discussion and not indulge in racist attacks. Thank you!
TungLok Group executive chairman said doing business in Singapore is a waste of time
TungLok Group executive chairman, Andrew Tjioe
The Strait Times reported a news through Asiaone yesterday highlighting how restricting foreign manpower into Singapore is “killing” businesses (‘No more new TungLok restaurants‘, 26 Feb).
It reported that to cope with the manpower shortage, “the TungLok Group closed its casual restaurant Lao Beijing at Tiong Bahru Plaza last December”.
In fact, the restaurant even put up a sign on the shutters:
“We regret to inform that Lao Beijing at Tiong Bahru Plaza will cease operations with effect from Dec 26 due to severe manpower shortage.”
Mr Andrew Tjioe, executive chairman of TungLok Group of 25 restaurants islandwide, said that he and his team did the calculations and decided that it made more sense to close the Tiong Bahru restaurant and re-deploy the 16 staff to his other restaurants.
He said one factor is due to lack of manpower. Other factors include rising rentals. He did not breakdown the weightage but one can assume that lack of manpower matters more since the group bothers to put up the sign at the Tiong Bahru restaurant, saying they are ceasing operations “due to severe manpower shortage”.
He said, “It was better to pull the staff over so that we would be able to operate our new restaurants TungLok Xihe and Modern Asian Diner at The Grandstand than to continue at Tiong Bahru Plaza. So I decided to close.”
The average spending at Lao Beijing was about $20 to $25 a person, but at the two new mid- to upper-mid-tiered restaurants, the average spending is about $30 to $35 for lunch, and $50 to $55 for dinner.
He said even with a workforce of 700-strong, the group is still 20% short of staff.
And with the MOM’s revised new dependency ratio kicking in next year, the group may find itself with about 30 foreigners too many if it does not increase the hiring of Singaporeans.
Mr Tjioe said that he doesn’t have problems hiring staff for his restaurants in Jakarta and Beijing but hiring Singaporeans for the group’s restaurants in Singapore is a problem.
He said that he offered $1,800 for service staff in his restaurants in Singapore but only 1 took up from 20 applications from Singaporeans. It is not known how many hours the staff need to work for a salary of $1,800 or perhaps overtime pay is included in the $1,800 package.
He said perhaps he shouldn’t be wasting his time doing business in Singapore. He said, “We have been doing business overseas anyway but perhaps now, that is the way to go – to spend more time exploring overseas markets than wasting time here.”
“I will not be opening any more restaurants for a while. I have to stop, not because there are no opportunities but primarily because of the labour shortage. The market can definitely afford to have more restaurants.”
So, perhaps restricting the growth of cheap foreign labour in Singapore is not killing businesses but rather slowing business expansion.
What is the point of expanding businesses based on cheap labour? Is this sustainable in a first world country? If slavery was enacted like in America in the 17th century, these towkays would be most happy since no pay was needed – just enough food to sustain the person to ensure he or she had the energy to work. What is then the point of building a humongous business empire based on “slaves”? Would the owner be proud of this or perhaps he only cared about his dollars and cents?
Perhaps it’s time for business owners to remember that running a business is not just about making money alone. It is also about carrying a corporate social responsibility to ensure that workers earn a descent salary to live a descent life in our society. Workers should not be seen merely as digits. They are our fellow humans living together in our society.
While the 2013 Budget attempts to address systemic problems that ail the nation, it continues to fall short, as with past Budgets, of addressing what Singapore really needs.
The SDP welcomes Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam's acknowledgment of the income disparity in Singapore and his effort to tackle the problem through the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS). We note, however, that the Scheme is similar to the Workfare Income Scheme (WIS) in that it pays out to employers to raise wages of workers.
The WIS has shown not to be helpful in achieving its objectives as income inequality in Singapore continues to widen despite it having been in effect since 2007. The Gini coefficient has risen in the last few years and continued to worsen in 2012 (from 0.473 in 2011 to 0.478 in 2012).
Without addressing the root cause of the income gap in Singapore, which is the continued downward pressure on wages brought about by the importation of lower-waged foreign labour, the WCS will not be an effective remedy. Such a piecemeal effort is inadequate in addressing a deep-seated problem which can only be addressed by the introduction of a minimum wage law which the Government continues to resist.
It is also instructive that WCS will be available for three years, covering the period till the next general elections. This raises the suspicion that the initiative is aimed at shoring up the PAP's political support.
The SDP also welcomes the Finance Minister's attempt to control the inflow of migrant workers by raising the foreign workers levy for 2014 and 2015. This is consistent with the previous Budget.
However, the fact the Government intends to continue to increase the intake of foreign workers by an average of 100,000 per year until 6 million in 2020 as announced in its recently published White Paper, the increase in the levy serves little purpose. Against such a backdrop, raising the levy only increases the cost of doing business without affecting our dependence on foreign workers.
If the Government is sincere about narrowing the income gap, it should rethink its policy of importing more foreign workers and introduce minimum wage.
Finally, it is heartening to note that the Budget will increase funding of Eldercare, a programme which the SDP supports.
The topping up of Medifund from $1 billion to $4 billion, however, remains a case of throwing good money after bad. The 3M-system of Medisave, Medishield and Medifund is unwieldy and opaque. It has shown to be inadequate to take care of the healthcare needs of the nation. Tweaking the amount for Medifund does not make our healthcare system affordable.
Instead, the 3Ms should be replaced by a single-payer system with the Government raising its healthcare expenditure from the current 30 percent to the international norm of about 70 percent.
The SDP will address the 2013 Budget's shortcomings in our Shadow Budget and propose an alternative and more efficient way of prioritizing our nation's expenditure estimates.
If you are younger than 35 year old and poor, be prepared to hear the bad news.
For a Singaporean worker earning holding onto a fixed pay, when the employee CPF contribution rate moves up to 20% from 16%, the take home pay may reduce.
The employer can choose to consider the entire pay package as one lump sum and will incorporate the required CPF contribution into the package. In short, the cash component may be affected negatively.
For a Singaporean that really requires help and is below 35 years old, workfare may not apply to him. How did policy makers decide that people below 35 years old don’t need workfare?
Similarly, just because the person is below 35 years old, he does not seem to qualify for the $200 top up of Medisave.
Coincidentally, if you are poor and below 35 years old, the income tax rebate does not apply to you as you don’t earn enough. Can things get worse?
Certainly! Do you think just because the government is willing to subsidize pay increase by 40% under the Wage Credit Scheme it will positively affect a poor employee below 35 years old? Surely not. Usually, a poor man is paid on an hourly rate, squeezed by sub sub sub contractors. (The many subs are not typos).
We hope the government can surface the budget 2 months before asking for opposition’s inputs.
