Meeting at Speaker's Corner 18 Oct, 6-7 pm

[Ah Hai]

Election into public office

Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Election into public office
I have received 716 signatures asking me to stand for election for public office.

The distribution of the replies are:
> Prefer TKL for elected president 26%
> Prefer TKL for member of parliament 14%
> Prefer TKL for both or either 60%

Several people have asked for a new petition form that allows them to leave out some of the particulars. Here is the new form:
http://www.petitiononline.com/TKLFP02/petition.html
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:57 PM :oIo:

 

[Ah Hai]

Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh
Hi Friends

There are widespread unhappiness on the way our town councils have invested into toxic instruments. This is not helped by some wayward reporting by our authorities.

I have just posted an online petition for more transparency with regard to our town councils' investment.

http://www.petitiononline.com/tc0502/petition.html

Please support this petition for more transparency with town councils' investment so that we can participate fully together in our nation building.

Please also help to spread this online petition movement if you feel inclined to.

Regds
Gilbert Goh
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:30 AM :oIo:

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh

2 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your support.

Gilbert Goh

7:54 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that recently the straits times is already poking fun at this idea of using petitions .. they used the term "petition nation" cheekily.
To avoid overuse of petitions and hence causing PAP to react adversely, why not just request the authorities exactly what you want ie. just ask them the 3 questions directly:
a. Please provide the P&L for the investments for other years, e.g. 20xx,19xx etc
b. Please explain how the 35% limit for investments is derived, and please consider opening to public debate espectially amongst non-political economists or experts in the fields.
(the 3rd question on sinking fund is overlapped and redundnat, it is covered in the 2nd question).

I think these questions should be given to the opposition MPs to ask in parliament, alternatively write to the straits times to respond to Dr Teo's recent response. Alternatively if all else fails, we need to make the opposition MPs wake up. It is their job to ask these questions. They can be considered as the correct vehicle to ask policy questions, not the citizen's individual signed petitions... it is nordering on childishness, an overkill and I don't think it is going to be effective at all.
REX

9:22 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Mistrust of financial products

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Mistrust of financial products
Hi Kin Lian,

Read your blog. I have thought about many of the issues in your blog for a long time and having worked as in the banking industry for 20 years, I have been long concerned about the products the banks are pushing out. As I shared, some of the products are so sophisticated and 'well-structured' that even financial professionals have difficulty telling the risks they are taking.

Here ia an example of an option product I came across 8 years ago, which on surface yields a whopping 18% interest. However, this 18% is merely the premium for writing a put option on HSBC shares that my CFO bought from his private banker. If the strike price was reached, his shares would be 'switched out'. Actually, this is when the option would be exercised. I saw the danger of such a product and even plotted a graph to show him that his upside was capped and his losses were unlimited. That kept him sweating for a few months until this option expired. Luckily for him, he got to 'milk' the 18%. I thought the financial institution was the greatest gainer and reaped him off completely!!

Reply: There are many products like this. It is quite common. The financial institution sells an option and takes the exess profit, leaving the investor to take an unlimited loss.

I have for a long time mistrusted banks and regulators to look after my welfare. Never invested in any of those structured deposits or even buy shares. I get saddened whenever I see folks who get trapped into this. Every time my mum brings home a brochure, I told her to dump it. To me, the financial system will fail one day. What are we to do? We certainly cannot put our money under our pillows and in biscuit tins. Surely, there must be more sober and honest institutions in the making that will look after the needs of ordinary people. Do you have any idea what this institution should be like? Can we implement that legally from our own capacity?

Reply: I hope that someone can set up a new institution, similar to the Central Provident Fund, that invest money honestly in the interest of the investors. It is just a low cost mutual fund, similar to an indexed fund.

P
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:25 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Mistrust of financial products

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re: Guaranteed That Poor People Will Squandered Away Their CPF Money

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by clinton666
If we allow the lazy poor people to withdraw their CPF, they will develop a crutch mentality and who is going to take care of these dumbasses when they get old. I am certainly not going to pay huge taxes to feed these lazy goons.

Those poor people who claim that they can take care of their own CPF money are bullcrapping. If they knew how to manage their money, they would not be poor in the first place.

REPEAT. Giving these lazy riff-raffs access to their CPF money is akin to giving them crutches. They will never learn to walk again.

In fact, only rich people like me should be allowed to withdraw our CPF money since we are well educated and have proven that we have to know-how to take good care of our money.

My Central Provident Funds savings is my hard earned money, through my BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS (not the pop group)!.

When I retire I want that sum of money, that was what the fund was started for in the first place in the year 1955!!!!

What I do with that retirement money, wether I am educated or not, that is my money, I worked hard for it, I did not steal it, is my business.

Wether I splurge the entire sum on whatever luxury within 5 mins I get hold of it, is still my money, I will be happy, just to spend it.

Don't go insulting all the hardworking people, who worked hard to get that savings.

In this rapidly eroding world, any cent obtain from CPF, is money in hand, we never know, one day, we may never get even a cent back!. Established fianancial institution that had been around for more than 300 years can collapse, Lehman Bros etc..comes to mine, why not CPF?

So, don not insult the lowly educated, who by their BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS worked hard for their retirement money (CPF) and help built this country, whom we call, SINGAPORE!
9:58 AM
Anonymous said...

There is nothing evil about a put option or even some of the CDOs which were sold as long as they are fairly priced.

The problem is the the bankss exploited layman ignorance of how to price these products to earn supernormal profit.

What is worse is that the FI's employed an army of eager beaver fresh grads to sell these products to unsuspecting retirees.

The coup de grace was the packaging of such products to make them look like ordinary savings/fixed desposits with artifically low rates of return.

The problem was systemic in that it was not a single FI which did it but rather the entire industry.

I mentioned this to a senior policy maker who is currently residing on the 9th floor of the Treasury Building in Hill Street.

To be a doctor or a lawyer, you have to pass vigourous exams and certification before you are allowed to practice.

However to advise someone on how to manage his/her life savings, all you need are A-levels and you can call yourself a relationship manager.

What we have now was a tragedy waiting to happen.
10:07 AM
Anonymous said...

In this world..some people go job and save xtra money. SOme people retired got lots of money and want to make a little more easy dividend. SOme people do business need more cash flow. some people work and also do part time business.
Many smartest people use internet trading to trade and auction after works all nights long.

Investment is about circle of trusted friends, a community of helping each other to succeed. I was told Mamak runs their corner tea-tarik business, each new outlets, they loan 100K for new owner to start, so they planned and control their growth. They also return their investors and financiers good yield on their loan money .
I buy and sell items over the internet with high yield and fast turn over, As i need cash in short call and large amount, so as I call my funders would invest short term of 3..5% per month. I keep my words and trusts, so they are happy. they also trade and contra my aquired products. so that make me growth and growth for last 8 years. i make many investors happy, both buyers and sellers as well as funders.

The financial system will not fund me, i am deemed illegal.
Modern global financial system is they go round with the License, with the branded FIs and cons... What is this all about. 158 years brands just go down the drain....

You either involved, work on it, and know the fund you place in. Something you can see, you know what they do, else, just be contended.
10:24 AM
Anonymous said...

I agree. I have lost all trust of the financial institutions after my minibond losses.

No longer trust the bank, no longer trust my broker at UOB Kay Hian

Each time I see their names, I get really angry

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Mistrust of financial products

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
SCMP:60 investors get HK$30m from banks on minibonds
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdi...1d13bf14caec&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ==

10 Dec 2008
Joyce Man

More than 60 investors in Lehman derivatives have received HK$30 million in compensation with help from the Democratic Party.

The settlements, involving 14 banks, came as a Legislative Council subcommittee that was formed to look into the saga said it would invoke its powers to call witnesses.

“ The range of compensation is very wide,” party member and district councillor Andrew Fung Waikwong said yesterday. “Some of them received full refunds and some even with the interest accrued.”

The party would not disclose the average percentage of the principals the investors received, but chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan said it was high.

Bank of China ( Hong Kong) reached 11 agreements, the largest number. DBS and Nanyang Commercial Bank followed with 10 and nine, respectively.

The other banks were Shanghai Commercial, Dah Sing, Citic Ka Wah, Wing Hang, Wing Lung, Bank of Communications, Citibank, Chong Hing, Fubon, Standard Chartered and Chiyu.

The city’s investors lost billions of dollars on minibonds guaranteed by Lehman Brothers when the US investment bank went bankrupt in September. Minibonds consist of high-risk, credit-linked derivatives marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.

Party member and legislator Kam Nai-wai expressed dissatisfaction that the resolved cases represented fewer than 1per cent of the total 7,000 requests – with losses totalling HK$ 4 billion – it received for help. “
Resolutions are going at a snail’s pace and the Monetary Authority is also moving at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Most of the investors were elderly, less educated, had little investment experience and had invested considerable amounts of their savings.

“The banks have told me they will also consider a compassionate factor,” Mr Kam said, citing single parents or people who needed to pay for their children’s education or family medical bills.

Mr Ho said he had no doubt the cases were resolved because the banks knew they had broken sales guidelines.

“All had regulation violations,” he said, adding that in some cases, bank representatives who were not licensed to sell the derivatives explained the investments to clients, and a licensed salesman simply signed the sales documents.

The Legco panel involved decided yesterday to call all its witnesses, as allowed by the law.

It may either compel them to give testimony or invite them on a voluntary basis.

But a legal adviser present said that if a witness declined to provide certain evidence at a subcommittee meeting open to the public, only the panel’s chairman and deputy chairman would have access to the material to decide whether the panel could examine it.
Reply Forward
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:09 AM
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why our national bank DBS compensate HK investors 100% but ignored own country men?
What great injustice to the High Notes 5 investors !!!
10:37 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Mistrust of financial products

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
HK: DBS sued over investment losses
10 Dec 2008

A retired couple are suing DBS Bank alleging misrepresentation resulting in the loss of US$1.26 million in their Lehman Brothers-related investments. In a writ filed on Monday in the High Court, Stephen Tou Kwok-woon and his wife, Wong Fung-chun, allege that a bank executive failed to properly advise them about the risks involved in their 2006 and 2007 investments.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:34 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Mistrust of financial products

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
HK: Lehman losers eye US class action move - press
Representatives of two United States law firms are expected to arrive in Hong Kong soon to establish links with local investors of the failed Lehman-related products in a bid to launch a no-win-no-pay class action in a US court.

Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho said yesterday the class action, if launched, would not affect local attempts at mediation, arbitration and buybacks in court cases.

"There is no collective litigation in Hong Kong," Ho said. "Besides, investors will only have to pay the lawyers should they be compensated [because of the no- win-no-pay approach, which is outlawed in Hong Kong]."

He said another major difference was that the US class action would be against the trustees while the Hong Kong cases are against retail banks.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:35 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Mistrust of financial products

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Why we need a minimum wage policy in Singapore
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/sporeans-and-foreigners-both-paying-the-price/#comments

Poll: Take part in the survey on the right panel

Free competition in the labour market, without safeguards, will continue to push down wages. With outsourcing of many types of work, the wages of the contract workers have now fallen below the subsidence level. Many family now needs two or three jobs to earn enough to survive.

Many countries solve this problem by introducing a “minimum wage”. I suggest that the minimum wage in Singapore should be SGD 10 an hour. If this wage is applied to cleaners, shop attendants and other low income jobs, there will be sufficient Singaporeans who are keen to accept these jobs - rather than remain unemployed.

We should continue to control the number of foreign workers who are allowed to take these jobs. The employer should be required to provide acceptable standard of accommodation and medical benefits to these worker. This will increase the cost of these foreign workers, and reduce the attraction of their “lower cost”, as compared to local workers. The foreign worker’s levy can continue to be levied.

If we need foreign workers to increase the pool of manpower, let us welcome them as long term immigrants. If they bring their family here, they will have to face the same high cost of living and cannot depress the wages fo local workers. This will be the subject of a separate discussion.

A minimum wage policy may mean that the customers have to pay more for these services. But, the increase may not be as large as feared. The wages of the workers is only one component of total cost. The other components are rental, profit and management salaries. I expect that, in a competitive market, these other components will fall to more reasonable levels, before the charges to the customers are raised.

Some people argued that higher wages will fo force businesses to locate to other countires. This argument does not hold water for the domestic service sector, which will be an important source of employment for the local people.

Anyway, we do not need many businesses in Singapore to create employment for foriegn and local workers who earn below the minimum wage. The large number of foriegn workers working in Singpaore at the depressed wages will create social problems that are not fully realised at this time.

I like to ask for support for a minimum wage policy in Singapore. This is social justice and fairness. It is for the long term good of our society.


Tan Kin Lian

Minimum wage should be $8 per hour
Someone told me that $10 an hour may be too high. He suggested that a minimum wage of $8 per hour may be more acceptable for a start. This gives $1,280 a month for 8 hours X $8 X 20 days = $1280. I agree.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:33 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

15 Comments

Daniel Ling said...

Hi, although i agree tat there is a issue, but i do feel tat implementing a Min Wage may not be able to solve the root problem. Let's just talk about Min Wage first.

It's a fact tat SG strives on foreign investments, coys, etc and we can't deny it. Nor are we able to rapidly change this fact in the next 10, 20 years simply becoz we are a small country where the strength is our pple.

$10 per hour may not be alot, i'm unable to fathom how much is too little, too much or enough. But if assuming tat Min Wage is really implemented, with the trend of the world now, to get similar workers in other countries at cheaper price isn't impossible anymore.(Both Blue, White Collar, Low to Mid to High Income)

Although the companies won't be able to just up and leave but this is a consideration for the future.

So if our Min Wage is higher than another country (Assuming same skills available) or worse, other countries do not ve Min Wage (Again, same skills available) then we would ve lost our strength which is our People.

The above is about Min Wage, next my view/opinion on the Root Issue which may be entirely wrong.

The reasons y we are asking for Min Wage obviously is due to the fact tat Money not Enough. Y is this so for SGeans, if we sit down and think about it, likely we can generate a whole new long list so i won't touch on tat.

I'll just assume tat Cost Of Living is High. Just about that for a Middle Average Disposable Income. (I'm using myself as a example) So if this is a case, wat about those below the Middle Average Income?

So isn't the Cost of Living the root cause? But of coz i realise tat there's many reasons for the High Cost of Living and if it's forcefully reduce, it may cause other issues too...

But well, i'm just a Middle Income which doesn't count as a Talent and I sincerely do not ve any suggestions on how this issue may be resolved.

10:57 AM
Blogger Parka said...

A direct consequence of the minimal wage system will be inflation in goods and services. Businesses will just have to cover the salaries they pay out by increasing the price of items they sell.

10:58 AM
Blogger Parka said...

I want to add that if companies want to remain in business with the rising people cost, then they will have to be more efficient (or ruthless) to make that profit.

11:00 AM
Anonymous Morgan Wu said...

Erm, can the anonymous above label where the quote ends next time? It makes comments easier to read.

12:58 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the above chap do not understand the evil of inequality in society.

we can't achieve a harmonious society without sacrifices.

what sacrifices?

begin with the rich and able not taking advantage of their weaker brethren!

tkl - jia yew jia yew

1:38 PM
Anonymous tiredman said...

I have been thinking for sometime, is Singapore going to be a huge sweat shop for the lower income people to work in? Worker Union in Singapore is known to be useless. If government is unwilling to spend on her people then she is simply as useless as the worker union. When both are unwilling to do something, it is possible for Singapore to become a sweatshop for all low income workers.
Young citizen, like me can start to think of their life as (1) senior citizen (i.e. being seen as a treasure when young but a trash when old) or (2) low income group working in the sweat shop. (i.e. work for a low pay) e.g. CPF contribution is lower for the employer portion for the elderly.
During good time, only corporate/govt enjoy high profit but elderly/low income group get nothing (share of the profit). However, during bad time, poor people have to suffer with them. What is this??!!! Sweat Shop??!! It is time for minimum wage to be in place.

3:17 PM
Blogger Victor Foo said...

I am supporting this motion. There is indeed a certain minimum wage a person staying here needs to take home for basic necessities.

4:42 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan
I totally agree there should be a minimum wage for employees, especially those on CONTRACT or PART-TIME basis.

In Singapore (compared to other 1st World countries!), employers exploit these workers, paying as low as $4 per hour for shift work during WEEKENDS/PUBLIC HOLIDAYS and AFTER 7PM shifts. In Western countries, these hours would be considered OVER-TIME !!

To add insult to injury, Singapore employers demands that applicants be YOUNG, possess computer skills, bilingual, ability to multi-task, etc., etc., etc. Paying peanuts but expecting Wonderwoman!!!


chew

4:45 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should start with Max wage policy. Why would you need to pay 8 million a year to a guy to run a company like SGX? What is the difference if we get another guy who is willing to accept 0.9 million? Are you sure the next guy who accept 0.9 million can't perform better?

7:36 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

$8, is simply too high as a minimum pay.

$6.80 will be a much more reasonable. This will not put too much pressure on SME.

9:19 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am just wondering. Is low income such a serious problem in SIngapore? Are the low income people or those who are dissatisfied also the majority? If so how do you explain over 60% voted for the PAP at every election? Maybe only 33% are low income or dissatisfied? So it may not be a major issue among the population of voters after all. That's why PAP is not worried at all because the majority likes them.

So try not to be in the 33% category in Singapore. Study hard, work hard to get a good job, good pay or do some business to earn good money. Don't hope for any other thing. Hope is a four letter word.

9:24 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

Ok another perspective

Lets cast aside Minimum Wage and none there is

In a Free Market, assuming an Unemployed person was offered an option of whether a Low Wage Employment or No Employment

The bad news is if he has decided Low Wage Employment, then according most of the arguments herein so far, he has to go thru the pains to decide whether if the Low Wage Employment is better or worse than No Employment

On the other hand, the good news is if he's offered No Employment, he doesnt have to even have to begin to worry about any those arguments isnt it?

Hmm hows that for Choice

10:36 PM
Blogger VS Lingam said...

Anonymous,

Over 60% voted for PAP at every election because:-

1. There is no good alternative govt.
2. Fear that the price of their HDB flats will fall if a non-PAP party comes into power.

Most SG ppl are so obsessed with their property that they would be willing to sell their souls to the devil for their property's sake.

Things will change for the better when Mr Tan KL steps into parliament.

10:48 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:36

funny thing, that too crossed my mind today.

the concept of min wage may not work without max wage limit.

it is time we reward the "less gifted" or disadvantaged by circumstances fairly in monetary terms and pander less to the "better gifted" by curtailing a king's ransom with ridiculous perks( sucking up their axx - if you mind the language)

it is good for the soul and society if we stop corrupting our able people with excessive wealth( and power) and channel back some of these excesses to those who work( humble jobs) equally hard but are less recognized or appreciated( in terms of rewards)

that may involve a revolutionary change in our union. they should be empowered to oversee a philosophical change in our reward system.

whether humble work or over glorified work, we can't do without each other and our reward system should reflect that.

11:00 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Why we need a minimum wage policy in Singapore

Thursday, December 11, 2008
Why we need a minimum wage policy in Singapore
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/sporeans-and-foreigners-both-paying-the-price/#comments

Free competition in the labour market, without safeguards, will continue to push down wages. With outsourcing of many types of work, the wages of the contract workers have now fallen below the subsidence level. Many family now needs two or three jobs to earn enough to survive.

Many countries solve this problem by introducing a “minimum wage”. I suggest that the minimum wage in Singapore should be SGD 10 an hour. If this wage is applied to cleaners, shop attendants and other low income jobs, there will be sufficient Singaporeans who are keen to accept these jobs - rather than remain unemployed.

We should continue to control the number of foreign workers who are allowed to take these jobs. The employer should be required to provide acceptable standard of accommodation and medical benefits to these worker. This will increase the cost of these foreign workers, and reduce the attraction of their “lower cost”, as compared to local workers. The foreign worker’s levy can continue to be levied.

If we need foreign workers to increase the pool of manpower, let us welcome them as long term immigrants. If they bring their family here, they will have to face the same high cost of living and cannot depress the wages fo local workers. This will be the subject of a separate discussion.

A minimum wage policy may mean that the customers have to pay more for these services. But, the increase may not be as large as feared. The wages of the workers is only one component of total cost. The other components are rental, profit and management salaries. I expect that, in a competitive market, these other components will fall to more reasonable levels, before the charges to the customers are raised.

Some people argued that higher wages will fo force businesses to locate to other countires. This argument does not hold water for the domestic service sector, which will be an important source of employment for the local people.

Anyway, we do not need many businesses in Singapore to create employment for foriegn and local workers who earn below the minimum wage. The large number of foriegn workers working in Singpaore at the depressed wages will create social problems that are not fully realised at this time.

I like to ask for support for a minimum wage policy in Singapore. This is social justice and fairness. It is for the long term good of our society.

Tan Kin Lian

Minimum wage should be $8 per hour
Someone told me that $10 an hour may be too high. He suggested that a minimum wage of $8 per hour may be more acceptable for a start. This gives $1,280 a month for 8 hours X $8 X 20 days = $1280. I agree.

Results of Poll
Poll, "Should a minimum wage policy be implemented in Singapore?"
Number of replies: 173
Yes: 75%
No: 18%
Not sure: 7%
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:33 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

15 comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by clinton666
If we allow the lazy poor people to withdraw their CPF, they will develop a crutch mentality and who is going to take care of these dumbasses when they get old. I am certainly not going to pay huge taxes to feed these lazy goons.

Those poor people who claim that they can take care of their own CPF money are bullcrapping. If they knew how to manage their money, they would not be poor in the first place.

REPEAT. Giving these lazy riff-raffs access to their CPF money is akin to giving them crutches. They will never learn to walk again.

In fact, only rich people like me should be allowed to withdraw our CPF money since we are well educated and have proven that we have to know-how to take good care of our money.

My Central Provident Funds savings is my hard earned money, through my BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS (not the pop group)!.

When I retire I want that sum of money, that was what the fund was started for in the first place in the year 1955!!!!

What I do with that retirement money, wether I am educated or not, that is my money, I worked hard for it, I did not steal it, is my business.

Wether I splurge the entire sum on whatever luxury within 5 mins I get hold of it, is still my money, I will be happy, just to spend it.

Don't go insulting all the hardworking people, who worked hard to get that savings.

In this rapidly eroding world, any cent obtain from CPF, is money in hand, we never know, one day, we may never get even a cent back!. Established fianancial institution that had been around for more than 300 years can collapse, Lehman Bros etc..comes to mine, why not CPF?

So, don not insult the lowly educated, who by their BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS worked hard for their retirement money (CPF) and help built this country, whom we call, SINGAPORE!
9:58 AM
Daniel Ling said...

Hi, although i agree tat there is a issue, but i do feel tat implementing a Min Wage may not be able to solve the root problem. Let's just talk about Min Wage first.

It's a fact tat SG strives on foreign investments, coys, etc and we can't deny it. Nor are we able to rapidly change this fact in the next 10, 20 years simply becoz we are a small country where the strength is our pple.

$10 per hour may not be alot, i'm unable to fathom how much is too little, too much or enough. But if assuming tat Min Wage is really implemented, with the trend of the world now, to get similar workers in other countries at cheaper price isn't impossible anymore.(Both Blue, White Collar, Low to Mid to High Income)

Although the companies won't be able to just up and leave but this is a consideration for the future.

So if our Min Wage is higher than another country (Assuming same skills available) or worse, other countries do not ve Min Wage (Again, same skills available) then we would ve lost our strength which is our People.

The above is about Min Wage, next my view/opinion on the Root Issue which may be entirely wrong.

The reasons y we are asking for Min Wage obviously is due to the fact tat Money not Enough. Y is this so for SGeans, if we sit down and think about it, likely we can generate a whole new long list so i won't touch on tat.

I'll just assume tat Cost Of Living is High. Just about that for a Middle Average Disposable Income. (I'm using myself as a example) So if this is a case, wat about those below the Middle Average Income?

So isn't the Cost of Living the root cause? But of coz i realise tat there's many reasons for the High Cost of Living and if it's forcefully reduce, it may cause other issues too...

But well, i'm just a Middle Income which doesn't count as a Talent and I sincerely do not ve any suggestions on how this issue may be resolved.
10:57 AM
Parka said...

A direct consequence of the minimal wage system will be inflation in goods and services. Businesses will just have to cover the salaries they pay out by increasing the price of items they sell.
10:58 AM
Parka said...

I want to add that if companies want to remain in business with the rising people cost, then they will have to be more efficient (or ruthless) to make that profit.
11:00 AM
Morgan Wu said...

Erm, can the anonymous above label where the quote ends next time? It makes comments easier to read.
12:58 PM
Anonymous said...

the above chap do not understand the evil of inequality in society.

we can't achieve a harmonious society without sacrifices.

what sacrifices?

begin with the rich and able not taking advantage of their weaker brethren!

tkl - jia yew jia yew
1:38 PM
tiredman said...

I have been thinking for sometime, is Singapore going to be a huge sweat shop for the lower income people to work in? Worker Union in Singapore is known to be useless. If government is unwilling to spend on her people then she is simply as useless as the worker union. When both are unwilling to do something, it is possible for Singapore to become a sweatshop for all low income workers.
Young citizen, like me can start to think of their life as (1) senior citizen (i.e. being seen as a treasure when young but a trash when old) or (2) low income group working in the sweat shop. (i.e. work for a low pay) e.g. CPF contribution is lower for the employer portion for the elderly.
During good time, only corporate/govt enjoy high profit but elderly/low income group get nothing (share of the profit). However, during bad time, poor people have to suffer with them. What is this??!!! Sweat Shop??!! It is time for minimum wage to be in place.
3:17 PM
Victor Foo said...

I am supporting this motion. There is indeed a certain minimum wage a person staying here needs to take home for basic necessities.
4:42 PM
Anonymous said...

Mr Tan
I totally agree there should be a minimum wage for employees, especially those on CONTRACT or PART-TIME basis.

In Singapore (compared to other 1st World countries!), employers exploit these workers, paying as low as $4 per hour for shift work during WEEKENDS/PUBLIC HOLIDAYS and AFTER 7PM shifts. In Western countries, these hours would be considered OVER-TIME !!

To add insult to injury, Singapore employers demands that applicants be YOUNG, possess computer skills, bilingual, ability to multi-task, etc., etc., etc. Paying peanuts but expecting Wonderwoman!!!


chew
4:45 PM
Anonymous said...

Should start with Max wage policy. Why would you need to pay 8 million a year to a guy to run a company like SGX? What is the difference if we get another guy who is willing to accept 0.9 million? Are you sure the next guy who accept 0.9 million can't perform better?
7:36 PM
Anonymous said...

$8, is simply too high as a minimum pay.

$6.80 will be a much more reasonable. This will not put too much pressure on SME.
9:19 PM
Anonymous said...

I am just wondering. Is low income such a serious problem in SIngapore? Are the low income people or those who are dissatisfied also the majority? If so how do you explain over 60% voted for the PAP at every election? Maybe only 33% are low income or dissatisfied? So it may not be a major issue among the population of voters after all. That's why PAP is not worried at all because the majority likes them.

So try not to be in the 33% category in Singapore. Study hard, work hard to get a good job, good pay or do some business to earn good money. Don't hope for any other thing. Hope is a four letter word.
9:24 PM
Wayangnologist said...

Ok another perspective

Lets cast aside Minimum Wage and none there is

In a Free Market, assuming an Unemployed person was offered an option of whether a Low Wage Employment or No Employment

The bad news is if he has decided Low Wage Employment, then according most of the arguments herein so far, he has to go thru the pains to decide whether if the Low Wage Employment is better or worse than No Employment

On the other hand, the good news is if he's offered No Employment, he doesnt have to even have to begin to worry about any those arguments isnt it?

Hmm hows that for Choice
10:36 PM
VS Lingam said...

Anonymous,

Over 60% voted for PAP at every election because:-

1. There is no good alternative govt.
2. Fear that the price of their HDB flats will fall if a non-PAP party comes into power.

Most SG ppl are so obsessed with their property that they would be willing to sell their souls to the devil for their property's sake.

Things will change for the better when Mr Tan KL steps into parliament.
10:48 PM
Anonymous said...

7:36

funny thing, that too crossed my mind today.

the concept of min wage may not work without max wage limit.

it is time we reward the "less gifted" or disadvantaged by circumstances fairly in monetary terms and pander less to the "better gifted" by curtailing a king's ransom with ridiculous perks( sucking up their axx - if you mind the language)

it is good for the soul and society if we stop corrupting our able people with excessive wealth( and power) and channel back some of these excesses to those who work( humble jobs) equally hard but are less recognized or appreciated( in terms of rewards)

that may involve a revolutionary change in our union. they should be empowered to oversee a philosophical change in our reward system.

whether humble work or over glorified work, we can't do without each other and our reward system should reflect that.
11:00 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

A broad based approach towards re-training

Thursday, December 11, 2008
A broad based approach towards re-training
Some people argued that re-training should be matched against job opportunity. I am in favour of a more broad-based approach.

In a recession, companies are cutting down jobs. There are few job opportunities to match the re-training.

I suggest that the retrenched workers should be allowed to attend training courses that will upgrade their educational level, such as language, mathematics, customer service and IT skills. These skills will be useful in most jobs.

Many of the older workers have low education. It will be a good time to let them catch up on these shortcomings. They can receive a training attendance allowance. It will also create jobs for other people to be instructors.

In many advanced countries, the retrenched workers receive an unemployment benefit without having to attend training. If we do not wish to give this benefit so easily, we can require them to attend re-training, but a more flexible, broad based approach can be adopted. Let them be trained on the skills that are most useful, and not necessarily be tied to a specific job opporunity.

Please participate in the Poll on the right panel.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:07 PM

 

[zack123]

Re: A broad based approach towards re-training

Sound like PAP message only....

Thursday, December 11, 2008
A broad based approach towards re-training
Some people argued that re-training should be matched against job opportunity. I am in favour of a more broad-based approach.

In a recession, companies are cutting down jobs. There are few job opportunities to match the re-training.

I suggest that the retrenched workers should be allowed to attend training courses that will upgrade their educational level, such as language, mathematics, customer service and IT skills. These skills will be useful in most jobs.

Many of the older workers have low education. It will be a good time to let them catch up on these shortcomings. They can receive a training attendance allowance. It will also create jobs for other people to be instructors.

In many advanced countries, the retrenched workers receive an unemployment benefit without having to attend training. If we do not wish to give this benefit so easily, we can require them to attend re-training, but a more flexible, broad based approach can be adopted. Let them be trained on the skills that are most useful, and not necessarily be tied to a specific job opporunity.

Please participate in the Poll on the right panel.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:07 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: A broad based approach towards re-training

Thursday, December 11, 2008
A broad based approach towards re-training
Some people argued that re-training should be matched against job opportunity. I am in favour of a more broad-based approach.

In a recession, companies are cutting down jobs. There are few job opportunities to match the re-training.

I suggest that the retrenched workers should be allowed to attend training courses that will upgrade their educational level, such as language, mathematics, customer service and IT skills. These skills will be useful in most jobs.

Many of the older workers have low education. It will be a good time to let them catch up on these shortcomings. They can receive a training attendance allowance. It will also create jobs for other people to be instructors.

In many advanced countries, the retrenched workers receive an unemployment benefit without having to attend training. If we do not wish to give this benefit so easily, we can require them to attend re-training, but a more flexible, broad based approach can be adopted. Let them be trained on the skills that are most useful, and not necessarily be tied to a specific job opporunity.

Please participate in the Poll on the right panel.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:07 PM

5 Comments


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Job matching & training should be given to those that are willing to work in industry that are short- handed e.g. service & retail. If the person is too picky, they should not be given the training at all less they waste the money & time.

9:34 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Training is only helpful if the cause of the unemployment is due to deficiencies in knowledge, skills or attitude. Indiscriminate training without understanding the underlying cause of the problem is like simply wasting time and resources. However, it is a useful tool to make the general population feel good and is good for morale of the masses. It is also a sign that the planners have run out of ideas and taking a safe route.
For example, when many people are being sent for a technical course like the NTC 3 and then NTC 2 in a specific skill. If there is indeed a shortage of people at that skill level then it is helpful. But if existing NTC 2 graduates are also being retrenched then what is the point of preparing more people for that level? Of course, the argument could always be that they are preparing for the long term. But this argument seems tired just like any investment that is losing money can be said to be for the long term. Sometimes investments like the ABC Learning centre in australia has no more long term to talk about, just like the 50 or 60 year old retrenched worker has no more long term to talk about when it is well known that employers already do not want to employ 40 year olds!

1:01 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

i been to broad and specific based training, both


the good news is i enjoyed that i am trained every time


the bad news is i dont enjoy the look on the face of the management review board each time i told them happily i was trained


I am not sure if its my Tie

1:50 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Gahmen don't talk about retraining, what else can they talk about helping people in recession?

They can't talk about providing suitable jobs, about social welfare or safety net, about the reality of discrimination, about foreign labour still being cheaper and needed.

So whether retraining can help or not, still have to talk about it. Must do or say something what, right?

3:03 PM
Blogger C H Yak said...

In her reply "PMETs represented in NTUC" which was in response to my letter to Today (28 Nov 2008), Mdm Halimad Yacoob had explained that NTUC had proposed, and the triparte partners agreed to amend the Employment Act to protect workers and junior executives earning monthly salary not more than $2,500. While this is a marked improvement, why and how is this salary peg arbitrarily applied?

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/289592.asp


The NTUC is spending $600 million on Skills Programme for Upgrdaing and Resilience (SPUR) but the paradox and irony is if that workers and / or junior executives are better trained and now earn $2,500 per month, they will no more be entitled to seek retrenchment claims under the Labour Court.

Care and trust cannot be achieved through legislations as said by the NTUC Chief, but due to this arbitrary low peg at $2,500, many are not protected and risked being victimised during retrenchment exercises, when "care and trust" alone could not be relied on for a fair solution.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Re: A broad based approach towards re-training

Anyone ever heard of the term Dry Well!

 

[VIBGYOR]

Where's the Minimum Wage Act?

 

[Ah Hai]

Fortnightly Meetings at Speaker's Corner on Structured Products

Fortnightly Meetings at Speaker's Corner on Structured Products
The schedule of meetings will be:

Saturday 29 November, 5 to 7 p.m.
Saturday 13 December, 5 to 7 p.m.
Saturday 27 December, 5 to 7 p.m.

Apart from the structured products, there will be other speakers talking on other issues relating to life in Singapore.

Watch for further announcements

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Fortnightly Meetings at Speaker's Corner on Structured Products

Friday, December 12, 2008
Who should be retrenched first?
Discussion in The Online Citizen
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/who-to-retrench-first-pm-vs-labour-chief/#comment-39428

Here are my views about who should be retrenched first - locals or foreign workers?

My answer is: retrenchment should be avoided. If demand drops by 20%, all workers should work 4 days (instead of 5 days) and take a 20% wage cut. The workers who are able to find alternative work elsewhere can resign. This allows the other workers to work more than 4 days and get additional income for the additional work.

How can the worker cope with a 20% cut in wages? They can draw down on past savings. I suggest a new scheme - to allow them to get a relief loan (for the drop in earnings) at a a modest rate (say 2.5% p.a.) for a period of 12 or 24 months. Such a scheme should be set up by the Governmetn as part of a social safety net. This is important in Singapore, in lieu of unemployment insurance.

We should treat our foriegn workers fairly. Many of them take big loans to come to work in Singpaore. We cannot send them back prematurely on an economic downturn.

In the future, we should plan the use of foreign workers carefully. It is better to have long term migrants into Singapore, if we need to increase our manpower and size of the economy.

Tan Kin Lian

Participate in the poll on the right panel
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:27 AM
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/12/who-should-be-retrenched-first.html

 

[Ah Hai]

12 Comments

Anonymous said...

Even the million dollar ministars themselves are confused. See the quote below:

NTUC Chief Lim Swee Say

LABOUR chief Lim Swee Say wants companies to put Singaporeans at the end of the queue when shrinking the number of their rank and file workers. Mr Lim believes the way to go in the current downturn is for firms to let non-Singaporeans go first, by not renewing the contracts and work permits of their foreign workers. ( Straits Times – 5 Dec 2008 )

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

If we just send away the foreign workers now, it will do us harm. For example - companies which are already in difficulty and they hire half foreign workers and half Singaporeans and you tell them that foreign workers must go out. And when you take Singaporeans, his cost will go up and the company may close. And if the company closes, even the half who have jobs may lose their jobs. ( Lee Hsien Loong, 8 Nov 2008, CNA )

If they can be confused and contradict each other within a month, what say you?? Top pay for top talent in gahmen??

8:51 AM
Blogger ArtBoon said...

Who should be retrenched first? The one who is viewed by the boss with lower productivity.

9:50 AM
Blogger ArtBoon said...

The boss will retrench the person that he thinks is contributing less.

9:51 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly this is what I felt also when I hear different calls from the same government. On one hand they appear to be caring for locals and on the other hand ask locals to accept not allowing foreign workers to go. There is also another minister contradict say dun retrench the foreign workers, if that is so, why is LSS never interact properly within themselves b4 talking publicly, wat a shame !

9:56 AM
Anonymous h said...

Isn't retrenching slackers and keeping high-performing employees more equitable?

10:06 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are entering COMPLEX ALGEBRA MODE.. X-Y and Z space, but now come the W-space. Hard to integrate the fourth dimension

10:13 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Charity begins at home. These foreign workers are guest workers in this country and if the downturn is too severe, we should take care of our own and let them go first.

Yes, they took big loans to come here but most of what they paid went into the pockets of middlemen.They were greedy and thus fell into the scam of these Cons. Also, they came here with the hope of making more than what they would have got in their home country so it's not as if they have a great love for this country. If there is no work for them or if the exchange rates were not in our favour, they'll exit the country in droves. Let's not displace our sympathy for these foreign adventurers and bounty hunters.

Making Singaporeans work less and thus take home less pay so that the foreign workers need not suffer too much? Share weal and woe with them? In this instance, I agree with the Government and think that you are barking up the wrong tree. Your concern should be more for the local Singaporeans and not the foreigners.

On the subject of migrant workers, we should really only allow real talents and not the trash that other countries don't want as it appears currently. And we should not do it in a way that upsets our way of life. Just go to some clinics at the KK Hospital and you would think that you are in some hospital in India or China. Please do not cheapen the red passport!

11:26 AM
Blogger vertigoer said...

Mr Tan, I don't quite agree with you on 20% pay cut for all employees.

Because, after the cut, will they raise back the 20% salary when their business is better?

Businesses should consider themselves who they want to keep for the business to survive and thrive.

12:03 PM
Blogger Tan Kin Lian said...

Most people like to have meritocracy, i.e. the poor performers should be retrenched.

When they become the selected person, they will feel that there is great injustice. By that time, their colleagues will be happy to have avoided this sad fate.

A good company should keep trim at all times, and remove the poor performers (especially during the good times, when they can find alternative employment).

During bad times, the pain should be shared fairly.

I am not suggesting a salary cut for the same work. I am suggested reduced salary for reduced days at work. The additional time can be usefully spent on learning and preparing for the future - or part time work.

12:10 PM
Blogger Concerned said...

During this slump period, the rationale would be to keep all workers, with a deeper cut for those slack workers and maybe no cut for those good performers. For foreigners workers, we should stop all new workers from coming here. Foreign workers should be subjected to a deeper cuts in their remuneration than the local workers as foreigners contribute to a lot of social problems which is not factored in the economic calcuations.

12:30 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep all the workers by cutting down work days to 3 days a week or work 1 weeks less a months. Workers can have more times for their family members. It better than retrenched.

12:51 PM
Blogger C H Yak said...

Retrenchment should not be confused with sacking due to poor performance.

Sacking should be a on-going process whether or not the economy is performing well.

In retrenchment, I do not think it is a simple question of who should go first.

Those who need to go due to retrenchment should at least be compensated equitably. Then, it would not be an issue of who needs and should go first. I still believe there is inappropriate /inadequate mandatory legislations in this respect. Only recently, was the Employment Act revised to protect those who earn upto to $2,500.00, from the previous $1,600.00. And many employed on contracts for services are not protected at all, irregards the salary level.