This is business as usual
 

*The author blogs at http://akikonomu.blogspot.ch

Have you wonder why you always have difficulties in getting a taxi during peak hour especially Monday morning, Friday Evening and Rainy Days?

Before I touch on the tips on getting a taxi, let me highlight how Comfort and SMRT booking system work.

Comfort/City Taxi – 6552 1111

1) There are two system that the taxi driver have.

I. Scheme 1 – Those taxi driver are not allowed to reject call booking for more than 3 times otherwise they will be penalised and suspense for an hour. Once suspense, they will be directed to scheme 2. generally, taxi driver in scheme 1 will get priority in their booking.

II. Scheme 2 – Many taxi driver are in these scheme as they are allowed to take booking as and when they want. In this scheme, those booking that have no taker will be channel to this scheme for the taxi drivers.

2) The bookings are made to the taxi drivers by assignment only. This is means that the booking will be assigned to one taxi driver (no bidding for it). If the taxi driver rejects, then the system will jump to assign to the next taxi driver and so on.

3) Generally, the assignment of the booking are being made to taxi driver that have some distance away for the location (about 1Km away or more).

4) Advance booking can be accepted by the Iphone or through the system by the taxi drivers.

5) Currently they have about 16,000 Taxi available

SMRT – 6555 8888

1) Generally, booking to the driver are prompt to the nearest available taxis in the vicinity with the faster finger gets (bidding system).

2) Advance booking can only be accepted through the system.

3) Currently they have about 3,300 taxi available.

Getting those information aligned, I will proceed on with the Do’s and Don’t when booking a taxi.

Morning Peak Hours

Do’s

1) Try to state the location you are going especially you are going to residential areas.

2) Give mobile number. These will enable the taxi drivers to contact you when they arrives. Not to worry on this as only those taxi driver that confirm your booking able to know your contact number.

3) Inform the taxi company to ask the taxi driver to contact you when they arrived. Generally this show that you will be expecting to wait for the taxi.

4) Indicated pick-up area. Eg Lobby, Carpark

Don’t

1) If you are going to Tuas, Loyang area, do not indicate it to the operators.

2) Do not indicate pick-up area at main road, bus stop. Generally taxi driver will not pick up the booking as it seem that you will hopped on the next available taxi approaching thus wasting their trip.

Evening Peak

Do’s

1）Indicate where you are going especially you are going to town or nearby residential areas like, Tiong Bahru, Outram, River Valley. If you are going within town, eg. Shenton Way to Marina Bay Sands, it’s  a die die must indicate.

2) Give mobile numbers. It’s especially important in the town area as there are thousands of people waiting for the taxi.

Don’t

1) Indicate that you are going to Yishun, Jurong as generally taxi driver would not want to take up the call if you are heading towards there.

2) Indicate only Office number. This will save you time and ensure that the taxi driver picks up the correct person.

3) Let the taxi driver to wait for you in the single lane driveway. For example, Great Eastern Building, 6 Battery Road, UOB Plaza, UOB Center etc. Due to heavy traffic during the time, taxi are not allowed to wait for so long as it will hog up the drive way. Thus taxi driver will cancel the booking if the person is not there as they are going to made a very big detour to comes back to the location.

When it rains or you are not able confirm a taxi, there is a little trick that you can used on the SMRT taxi (Cannot confirm if it’s works on Comfort/Citycabs as I’m not driving theirs).

The trick is, call SMRT by phone to 6555 8888 to connect to the operator. Indicate that you want an advance booking (If you don’t mind paying extra $4.70 – [$8 - $3.30]）.  For example, if now is 8am, the earliest advance booking is 8.30am. Inform them to put the remarks that the taxi driver can come anytime and call you once they arrives.

This trick can work as the prompting of the advance booking is different from  the current booking and not many people are using the advance booking. Thus priority is being given to the advance booking. These will show up in the taxi driver system even they have passenger inside the taxi. The worst scenario is that you had to wait for half an hour for the taxi to arrives (better than no taxi right?)

I will only touch on these two taxi companies as generally people are calling these two companies for taxi. I hoped that the tips I have given will help you to lessen the waiting time calling for a taxi.
 

NEWBIRD

*A VERY NORMAL SINGAPOREAN THAT CARES ABOUT SINGAPORE. THE CURRENT STATE OF SINGAPORE MAKES ME TO START THIS BLOG DESPITE THE FACTS THAT I DO NOT LIKE WRITING NOR GOOD IN MY LANGUAGES. IN HERE, I WOULD LIKE ABOUT THE POLICIES THAT ARE AFFECTING SINGAPOREAN, POLICIES IN QUESTIONS/ARGUABLE/DEBATABLE. HE BLOGS AT MRNEWBIRD.WORDPRESS.COM

Dear The Real Singapore,

I am a NUS student and i want to tell all your readers that not everyone that stays at Sentosa Cove are rich. I drive a poor Toyota car instead of a fancy sports car.

Whenever I tell people I stay at Sentosa Cove, there are gasps all around. Truth is, the people who live here aren't all rich. 

Sure, you see more than your fair share of Ferraris and Lamborghinis; and the lavish parties during the weekends. But most of the houses here aren't that much more expensive than some of the others in Singapore.

Sure, you can see private yachts and have millionaires as your neighbours, but I do not think they are incredibly wealthy (maybe just showy). 

In any case, my parents only bought the property here because it is a short commute to the CBD. They work long hours and do not have the luxury to enjoy the scenery and rest at home much.

Frankly, I do not think location is such a big deal. It takes me up to half an hour just to drive to NUS. And in case you think I am some rich man's son, I'm sorry but I drive a humble Toyota Mark X. 

So please don't judge people by where they stay, but by their personality and character.

Thank you very much!

Anonymous TRS reader

<Pic credit: Omy>

The boss of a software company who was filmed hitting the head of his intern and using vulgar language on him said he did so because he saw himself in the younger man.

"I treated him like a little brother, I wanted to teach him," the supervisor called Alan was overheard saying to the victim's parents when they confronted him, reports Lianhe Wanbao.

He apologised profusely to the victim's parents, but they were not appeased.

According to a New Paper report, Alan also repeatedly said that he would shoulder the responsibility, to which a family member asked if he could fork out $100,000 in compensation. 

This figure, said the family member, was based on a graduate's $1,000 starting pay for the first year, plus an increment of $500 every month starting from the second year, plus bonuses and unpaid leave.

The abused intern has since gotten 4 job offers, including one paying $3,000.

The 23-year-old intern who exposed the supervisor, who is also the boss of the company, has been hailed as the 'handsome hero'.

In the wake of the incident, the family of the victim is demanding $100,000 in compensation for lost wages over the years.

They had previously visited the office to confront the supervisor, but had refused to accept his apology to settle the matter.

Lianhe Wanbao also stated that the intern had joined Encore eServices's Jurong East office three years ago as an undergraduate. His salary was just $500 a month despite putting in around 12 hours a day, and he was not given any benefits or leave days.

Source: AFP

Singapore leaders start to talk about the importance of having multiple skills rather than just obtaining a degree.

This is the clearest sign yet that the authorities are expecting a sustained period of relatively low economic growth and slower employment opportunities.A NUMBER of political leaders have appealed to Singaporeans not to place too much faith on university degrees in an apparent effort to manage public expectations.

Singaporeans, especially parents, who have long regarded the university degree as a key to a good life will likely be shocked.

For decades, the government has been en­couraging youths to study hard or lose out in a competitive world. This apparently spells a change in education strategy.

It has also thrown more light on a baffling revelation made earlier by a senior Education Ministry official to American diplomats.

This revelation was that the global economy embraced by Singapore has made it much less conducive for over-educated societies.

Having a large number of graduates, once thought crucial for Singapore’s prosperity, is now considered not conducive to the changing manpower market, at least in Singapore.

However, none of the political leaders – the Prime Minister and three ministers – has mentioned another reason for the excess of graduates – the mass intake of foreigners.

Led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan, the leaders are now advising Singaporeans to consider non-university routes to success.

Khaw said: “You own a degree, but so what? You can’t eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless.”

He added that Singapore could not have an entire nation of graduates.

“Can you have a whole country where 100% are graduates? I am not so sure. What you do not want is to create huge graduate unemployment,” he said.

Then it was the turn of Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, who said that a good qualification alone does not guarantee a career, let alone a job.

Thirdly, Acting Minister for Social and Fa­mily De­ve­l­opment Chan Chun Sing said it is not the degree or diploma that is most important for graduates, but the ability to learn a different set of skills.

“The soft skills in life have to be acquired and have to be continuously refreshed. If not, even with the best degree from the best universities in the world, we may find ourselves obsolete one day.”

They were taking the cue from Prime Minister Lee who had earlier told polytechnic students that getting a degree is not the only option. He encouraged them to work for a few years or start their own business.

“You will gain experience and understand yourself better and then be better able to decide what the next step will be,” he said at Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s 50th anniversary celebration.

All these political leaders have served to clarify a comment made by a senior education ministry official that the government does not encourage more Singaporeans to get higher education.

As revealed by Wikileaks last year, assistant director of planning Cheryl Chan told the United States diplomats that it would instead cap graduate enrolment rate at 20%.

The reason, she said, was: “The labour market does not require too many graduates.”

She also admitted that only 23% of Singaporean students who entered primary school would ever complete a four-year tertiary education, a figure far below that of the United States (50%) and Taiwan.

This gave confusing signals to a worried population, which probably ranks as one of the most enthusiastic in Asia about getting a degree for their children.

Many continue to make great personal sacrifices to help their children and are unlikely to abandon this just because of what the government says. The new emphasis is for multiple skills and drive.

So far, the government has not reduced the places in university but has instead increased them. The number of universities were raised to five with a total enrolment of about 13,250 students, with about a third being foreign students. Cutting down tertiary education is obviously not in the cards – but “discouragement” is now taking place.

The ruling party is dependent on the scholarship system to recruit its future leaders, and it is still bent on attracting bright foreign students to its shores.

In addition, nearly 18,000 Singaporeans are studying in foreign institutions, mostly in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. According to local media reports, the market is unable to absorb the large number of graduates coming onstream.

One report quoted a McKinsey & Co study as saying that almost half of the graduates are holding jobs that do not require a degree.

The over-supply is having a dampening effect on graduates’ salaries (again no mention of the foreign arrivals), it added.

In the past 10 years, undergraduate numbers have doubled.

The effort to get Singaporeans to abandon the paper chase for their children is almost like mission impossible. Many have begun to spend thousands of dollars a month on private tuition for their kids starting as young as seven years old.

What is the new drive aimed at? One possibility is that it is trying to reduce the number of below average students from joining the paper chase but still encouraging the bright ones to carry on.

Economically, Singapore has barely escaped another technical recession. A revised first quarter GDP shows a rise of 1.8%. Gone are the days of double-digit growth, probably never to return.

So what work can non-graduates do? One suggestion from Prime Minister Lee is: “Become hawkers.”

Singapore plans to build 10 large hawker centres. It’s a chance to develop entrepreneurial skills in a business no Singaporean customer can avoid for long – if the products are good.

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70, based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard (1973-74),  Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog, http://www.littlespeck.com.

When I read the update from the CPF Board that they have helped to recover some $293 million of CPF arrears (including late payments) for more than 200,000 local workers last year, the numbers stood out. This is why we initiated the ‘WorkRight’ effort and we are stepping up our inspections ten-fold.

The sum is indeed not small, and is a cause of concern. Employees work hard to contribute to their companies and they should not be denied their rightful CPF contributions. CPF savings are important to all Singaporeans, especially for vulnerable groups of low-wage workers who rely on it to fund their retirement, healthcare and housing needs.

It is certainly not right for companies to deprive workers of their CPF. It is an offence under the CPF Act for employers to default on CPF contributions, and action is taken against companies who underpay or do not pay CPF to their employees. Currently, employers who break the law by underpaying or not paying CPF will be fined up to $10,000.

I have tasked my colleagues in MOM and CPF Board to review the penalties under the CPF Act, especially since the numbers show that non-compliant employers affected more than 200,000 local workers last year. By upping the penalties, this will hopefully serve as a stronger deterrence for employers. I also hope this will help to ensure that every employee is given timely CPF contributions, and that no worker is deprived of what is rightfully his or hers.

But it should not all be about the “stick”.

Both MOM and the CPF Board have stepped up efforts to bring about greater compliance with the CPF Act and Employment Act. We want to ensure that employees, particularly more vulnerable groups like low-wage workers receive their salary on time, are paid their CPF contributions, and are provided with paid annual and sick leave, amongst others.

Since last September, through the “WorkRight” outreach, MOM and the CPF Board have jointly been educating workers on their employment rights and reminding employers of their obligations through various channels such as print advertisements and talks. We have also stepped up enforcement activities. Previously, our annual number of inspections on employment rights averaged 500. In the last four months alone, WorkRight inspectors have already conducted 800 inspections.

On-site WorkRight inspection to raise locals’ awareness of their employment rights

One employee who has benefited from WorkRight inspections is Mr Chua (not his real name). His employer was found to have underpaid CPF contributions from Jan 01 to Nov 12. After investigations, his employer was educated about his CPF liability and advised to pay the remaining CPF arrears. In all, we managed to recover $26,000 for Mr Chua. This is not a small sum – and 56-year-old Mr Chua was immensely grateful as this amount would contribute towards his savings for retirement.

Employers must do the right thing and pay their local employees what is due to them in CPF contributions. Employees should also check their CPF accounts regularly by calling the CPF hotline 1800-221-9922 or via the CPF website to ensure that their employers have made the correct CPF payments.

If you know of employers who are not fulfilling their CPF obligations, do report by calling 1800-221-9922 or emailing workright@mom.gov.sg. Rest assured that the identity of the caller will be kept strictly confidential.

Let’s continue to ensure we all work together to make things Right for workers!

Tan Chuan-Jin
Acting Minister for Manpower

A well thought out and neutral article.

I would like to hear the author’s opinion, on the existence of a social safety net (e.g: National Health Insurance ) into the context of his article.

When comparing Singapore to developed countries, one must also compare the Pros & Cons.

Where civil rights, citizen first philosophy, social safety net and welfare benefits exist, Singapore is playing catch up. Or rather, it is enjoying its profits too much to bother with stuff that will result in short-term loss, which usually means exponential long-term losses.

A country, which is adopting western culture where the young lose respect for the elderly, and where the elderly is left to fend for themselves, when their economic power has been exhausted paying off the mortgage of a basic roof over their heads.

The elderly can now look to retirement options of being a cleaner ( this is even being threatened by foreign workers where the government’s policies encourage it, as more workers equate to more levies ) or a beggar.

When one get his by a critical illness, one prays he does not become a burden to his family, who themselves will be struggling to pay off a 30 year mortgage. We cannot sleep well on minister’s assurances that we will not be denied medial treatment in times of need because the chances of being refused treatment due to financial constraints is there for us to see. Following accounting principles, we should not realise a profit until they are realised but should make provisions for losses when first detected. Similarly, the Asian philosophy of filial piety dictates that a parent, who just wants the best for his children, would rather die than to see his family bankrupted from a critical illness. The means test is not practical and where even on the brink of death, we will be expected to go down on our knees, to beg for whatever pitiful scraps that will be dropped, which may never see light of day.

Some may argue for private insurance, but experience has shown that throwing good money on high premiums containing fat bonuses aka commission, towards a hope, is nothing more than a hope, which hopefully, does not backfire by way of fine clauses and hidden print, when the need arises. What you spend on the premiums for such perceived protection outweighs the amount you will spend on the needed medical care when the time comes.

When the government of the day bemoans the low fertility rates, have they compared how much it costs to have a baby in Singapore, compared to other countries with similar wage to expense ratios?

With the average couple expected to be a dual income household, with a large near lifetime mortgage hanging over their head, worrying about their positions being displaced, so much stress!

I still believe the government of the day has what it takes to effect the needed changes, but i cannot see how, high in their ivory towers, they can see and understand what the average wage earner really needs.

.

Aloysius

* Comment first appeared in: Even Ang Mo PR can’t ‘tahan’ current overcrowding in SG

MONDAY’s editorial (“Town councils: Time to clear the air”) did not discuss the dynamics of management in town councils.

These involve in-depth knowledge of complex transactions under constant scrutiny, direct management control, intricate personal relationships and governance by comprehensive panel codes.

It is unrealistic to expect MP-controlled town councils using profit-oriented commercial managing agents to provide low-cost and non-partisan public services.

I have seen management councils and managing agents in private estates waste over $1.75 million in collective condo funds as a result of the many shortcomings of democratically elected management councils and complex politics at play.

Meanwhile, innocent stakeholders suffer.

Having the HDB as managing agent is a better choice.

Before Parliament passed the Town Councils Bill in 1988, the HDB managed estates.

With thousands of workers under its direct management doing everything from cleaning to landscaping, the HDB provided uninterrupted efficient service and did a job beyond reproach.

Can the small splintered managing agents and sub-contractors today provide lower cost and better services?

There are flaws in having MPs run town councils through managing agents.

In reality, MPs are part-time bosses. Residents have no say and are unable to sack incompetent managing agents.

Unless the MP works full time to direct the day-to-day town council business, it remains just an expensive outsourcing exercise and the essence of intimate interactions with voters is lost.

It is also impossible to maintain neutrality and be non-partisan if MPs are the bosses of town councils.

When it comes to the awarding of multimillion dollar contracts, how will participating vendors who are party members, grassroots leaders, supporters and friends be differentiated?

If MPs run town councils with a laissez-faire policy, it might inadvertently compromise the interests of residents.

Hence, it would be better to return to having the HDB as managing agent under the National Development Ministry.

.

Paul Chan Poh Hoi

* Letter first appeared on ST Forum (25 May)

<Pic credit: AP>

Police, politicians and activists in Britain are warning of rising anti-Muslim sentiment following the slaughter of an off-duty British soldier in a London street, an apparent act of Islamic extremism that has horrified the nation.

Metropolitan Police investigating the killing of Lee Rigby, a 25-year-old soldier who was run over by attackers then butchered by knives, arrested three more men in the murder investigation Saturday. Stun guns were used on two of the three men, aged 24 and 28, police said.

The latest arrests came as an estimated 1,500 members of an extremist right-wing group called the English Defense League marched in the northern English city of Newcastle, chanting Rigby’s name. In the southern English city of Portsmouth, police arrested two men for a racially motivated assault as hundreds of demonstrators gathered near one mosque, while several more people were detained for alleged racist offenses elsewhere.

The two men suspected of killing the soldier, Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, remained under armed guard in separate London hospitals after police shot them at the scene. Police have not officially named the suspects because they have not been charged, but British officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the investigation, have confirmed their names to The Associated Press.

Wednesday’s murder in southeast London’s Woolwich area shocked the nation partly because the horrific scenes were recorded on witnesses’ cellphones, and a video picked up by British media showed one of the two suspects, his hands bloodied, making political statements and warning of further violence as the soldier lay on the ground behind him.

Counter-terrorism police also are questioning a friend of Adebolajo who was arrested Friday night immediately after he gave BBC Television an interview detailing why he thought Adebolajo may have become radicalized.

Metropolitan Police said the friend, identified by the BBC as 31-year-old Abu Nusaybah, was wanted himself on suspicion of “the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” The force declined to elaborate.

In his BBC interview, Nusaybah said he knew Adebolajo as a moderate Islam convert. He said he thought Adebolajo’s behavior changed after a trip to Kenya last year, and alleged that Britain’s MI5 domestic spy agency tried to recruit him upon his return six months ago.

Rigby’s killing - and Adebolajo’s apparent link to Islamic extremism - has stirred anti-Muslim backlashes across Britain. Police said they arrested three people on suspicion of posting racist tweets ahead of the English Defense League march, and further detained 24 others before and during the protest on suspicion of public drunkenness, vandalism and distributing racist literature. One group of marchers carried a sign that read “Taliban Hunting Club.”

About 350 counterdemonstrators who called themselves Newcastle Unites shouted abuse at the marchers, including “Nazi scum off our streets!” The region’s Northumbria Police said riot police prevented any direct clashes between the opposed groups.

Meanwhile, the far-right British National Party announced it would rally supporters next weekend on the spot where the young soldier was killed.

“Has the horror of Woolwich woken you up too? ... Join the British resistance,” British National Party leader Nick Griffin said in a video address Saturday to supporters announcing his plans for a “Stand Up to Muslim Terror” rally at the scene of the crime, where thousands already have left floral bouquets paying tribute to the soldier.

A group that campaigns against extremism, Faith Matters, said it has received reports of around 150 anti-Muslim hate crimes across Britain since the soldier was killed Wednesday, more than 10 times the usual rate. Its director, Fiyaz Mughal, said he was particularly concerned by how geographically widespread the actions, including street fights and the vandalism of mosques, had become.

“Some of them are quite aggressive, very focused, very aggressive attacks ... against institutions or places where Muslims congregate,” he said.

Source: AP

Zorro Lim became the Union Chief not by merit or credibility nor ability but by by being the very active mouthpeice of LKY and later PM Lee. Echoing and supporting all their policies without fail every time.

Heng Chee How the Deputy General-Secretary of NTUC was once a popular union leaders with many of his own supporters. He was also a rival to Zorro Lim for the post of Union Chief. Unfortunately the labor MP spoke out for the workers in Parliaments for higher wages when LKY was present. LKY deliberately walked out of Heng Chee How in the middle of his pro workers speech.

Taking the cue from LKY, the ex-union Chief Lim Boon Heng and the government went out of their way to promote Zorro Lim as the General Secretary of NTUC and ensured that Zorro Lim was elected the next union Chief. Heng Chee How faded into oblivion after this and was less active in the NTUC until recently.

The ex-union Chief Lim was just as pathetic as Zorro Lim as far as older workers complaints of age discrimination was concerned. When older local ladies selling Tiger beers complained that they were being replaced by younger women from China Lim Boon Heng sided with the coffee-shop towkay.

Lim Boon Heng’s logic was foreigners selling more beers was good business for the coffee-shop owner and will helped our local Tiger ladies keep their jobs. The reality was eventually all our local lady beer sellers were replaced because the greedy towkay could sensed that customers only wanted more young and pretty foreigner ladies beer sellers to serve them. Therefore the coffee-shop towkays see no need to retain the local old hags but instead employed more foreigners as beer sellers.

These two union chiefs are responsible for suppressing, denying and ignoring worker’s right for many years and must now share the blame for the discrimination in our workplace.

Nathan

* Comment first appeared in: ‘Zorro Lim’: Proposed anti-discrimination labour law needs to be balanced

This is a commentary on the 10 points Ms Aresha Krishnan raised in her 26 Feb 2013 TREmeritus article “White Paper: 10 things every SG should know & think about”.

Ms Krishnan started by saying we are a small, young country with no natural resources going from zero to hero in 50 years whereas it takes hundreds of years to stabilise a country. Much of that is not true. Singapore has been around since 1819 so we are already 194 years old, not that young anymore. We weren’t zero back in 1965, we were at least middle income back in 1960 [1] and according to LKY was already a metropolis or very nearly so [2]. According to Dr Goh Keng Swee, even though Singapore didn’t have natural resources, our very geographic location is one of four reasons why Singapore succeeded [3].

Point 1: We were founded and sustained from day 1 on the basis of foreign migrants

Ms Krishnan’s first claim is based on the fact that our parents or grandparents were foreign migrants. While that may be true, it doesn’t mean that generation after generation must continue to be foreign migrants or that our new found indigenity isn’t worth protecting and promoting.

Ms Krishnan supposedly found data [4] to show that there aren’t that many true blue Singaporeans. Her data supposedly shows that out of 3.81 million Singapore residents; 1.96 million are foreign born while only 1.85 million are local born. That is not true. Our own 2010 population census [5] shows that in 2010, out of 3.77 million residents, 0.86 million were born outside of Singapore, 2.91 million were born in Singapore. So the number of foreign-born residents should be 0.86 million and not 1.96 million as stated by Ms Krishnan. The Singaporean population should be 2.91 million strong, not 1.85 million strong as stated by Ms Krishnan. So how did Ms Krishnan get her figures so wrong?

Mr Krishnan’s data source [4] is World Bank’s Stock of International Migrant data which is in turn obtained from the United Nations Population Division, Trends in Total Migrant Stock: 2008 Revision. By retrieving data from the 2008 Revision website [6], we can confirm that Ms Krishnan’s figure of 1.96 million refers to Singapore’s stock of international migrants for the year 2010. The UN defines international migrants [7] as the number of persons born in a country other than that in which they live. This means that our international migrants refers to all those who live in Singapore but who were not born in Singapore and that includes all foreigners and foreign born residents. Thus, Ms Krishnan mistook “international migrants” to mean foreign born residents when it actually means all foreign-born including foreigners and foreign born residents.

Point 2: The Population White Paper proposes to slow down the volume of foreign migrants to the lowest ever in the history of Singapore

One look at Ms Krishnan’s data source [4] and we can immediately tell her second claim to be false. The following chart obtained directly from Ms Krishnan’s link shows there was no increase in our migrant stock between 1960 and 1980. No amount of ‘supposed slowing’ by the White Paper can be lower than that recorded between 1960 and 1980. It is also clear from the graph that our most recent rate of foreign migrant intake between 2005 and 2010 is the fastest in our self-rule history.

More precise numbers in the table below are obtained from the source of Ms Krishnan’s data source: the United Nations International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision [6].

The Population White Paper estimates our population to be between 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030 of which 3.6 million to 3.8 million will be citizens from which we can estimate the foreigner and PR population to be between 2.9 million and 3.1 million. That will mean an addition of about 0.94 to 1.14 million foreigners and PRs to the current 1.96 million. Add to that 15,000 to 25,000 new citizens injected each year till 2030 or a total injection of 0.255 million to 0.425 million new citizens, we will have a total of 1.2 to 1.6 million international migrants injected from now till 2030. This is equivalent to the injection of between 70,294 to 92,059 international migrants per year, a level comparable to our current all-time high of 94,578 between 2005 and 2010 or second all-time high of 72,051 between 1995 and 2000. In other words, the claim that the Population White Paper is seeking to slow down foreign migrant intake to the lowest level in our history is false. Far from it, it is proposing to maintain it at the current historic high or the next historic high.

Point 3: Our GDP growth correlates to a ‘T’ with foreign worker numbers and number of overseas born residents

The graph below shows how foreigner numbers, GDP and per capita GDP changed since 1980. We can see that spurts of growth in foreigner numbers in the early 1980s and in the mid-1990s did not correspond to spurt in GDP while in the early 2000s, foreigner numbers fell while GDP continued to go up. Correlating to a ‘T’ isn’t exactly how you would describe the relationship between foreigner numbers and GDP. While foreigner numbers grew by 11.3 times since 1980, GDP only grew by 7.8 times. Foreigner growth outstripped GDP growth by 1.5 times.

More importantly, it is per capita GDP that matters rather than GDP itself. Per capita GDP grew by only 3.5 times since 1980 compared to 11.3 times growth in foreigner numbers. Foreigner growth outstripped per capita GDP growth by more than 3 times suggesting that our growth is very much labour driven rather than productivity driven.

Point 4: The ratio of working adults to households will fall as birth rate falls

Fall in birth rate means fall in working adults and fall in households too. Depending on which falls faster, the ratio may increase, decrease or remain unchanged.

Point 5: We have the lowest GDP in Asia

That can’t be true given the abundance of poor countries in Asia. East Timor and Bhutan have lower GDP than us. Again, it is not GDP per say that is important but per capita GDP.

Point 7: The two child policy gave birth to a well-educated society

That only makes sense before compulsory education when parents with too many children may not be able to afford to let all their children go to school. But compulsory education meant that all were given a chance at education regardless of population size. Hence, compulsory education was probably more important in giving birth to a well-educated society.

Point 8: The property boom in 1994 may have led to drop in population

Ms Krishnan claims there is a second fertility slump post 1992 due to the 1994 property boom. The following graph shows Singapore’s TFR from 1960 to 2010. There is no evidence of a significant second TFR drop post 1992. Apart from a small spike around 1997, our TFR has mostly been flat and gradually declining since around 1977.

Point 10: Our success today is the result of our government

In his essay [3], Dr Goh Keng Swee wrote of four reasons why Singapore prospered despite insurmountable difficulties: our excellent geographical location; Victorian principles of free trade and free market system which helped keep Singapore efficient and adaptable and the continuous development of Southeast Asia. Dr Goh wrote that Singapore had to constantly adapt her economy to changing circumstances throughout our colonial days and it is this adaptability that is the priceless advantage that we inherited from the British. In other words, our success and competitive advantage is largely the result of our British inheritance. We inherited a most invaluable port from the British. We inherited free trade, free market principles from the British too. We also inherited an outstanding civil service and other institutions from the British. In so many ways, our success really is a continuation of the success we have always had since colonial days. This can be seen from the fact that we had already achieved middle income status back in 1960, 5 years before independence [1] as well as many other historical snippets [2] which show that we were already quite successful before or at the start of PAP rule. Last but not least, we also owe our success to Dr Albert Winsemius who came up with the economic plan which we followed.

Conclusion

Ms Krishnan recommends that we slowly deconstruct our economy since it is a foreigner based one. But as shown in Point 1, her recommendation is based on her false finding that Singapore residents comprises 1.96 million foreign born and only 1.85 million Singapore born. That is found to be untrue. Our own census shows that 2.91 million out of 3.77 million or 77% Singapore residents are Singapore born.

Ms Krishnan lends support to the Population White Paper by supposedly showing that it too recommends the slowing down of foreigner intake. Again, that is found to be untrue. The Population White Paper recommends foreigner intake that is comparable to our current record high.

[1] Carl A. Trocki, Singapore: wealth, power and the culture of control, Page 166
Singapore had already attained a middle income status in 1960 with a per capita GDP of $1,330

[2] Peter Wilson / Gavin Peebles, Economic growth and development in Singapore: past and future, Page 26
Post-war Singapore was never a backward fishing village waiting to be transformed by Lee Kuan Yew into a modern economy. The King of Thailand wouldn’t have sent 20 of his sons to a fishing village for education in the late nineteenth century. A fishing village could not have staged a manned air flight as early as 1911. Singapore was credited with the finest airport in the British Empire in the 1930s. LKY had already acknowledged in an Aug 1967 speech to American businessmen in Chicago that we were already a metropolis.

[3] Goh Keng Swee, The Practice of Economic Growth, Chapter 1: Why Singapore succeeds, pages 6-7

[4] http://bit.ly/X4PiHE

[5] Census of Population 2010, page 6, table 5

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2010acr.pdf

[6] United Nations International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision

http://esa.un.org/migration/

[7] United Nations International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision

http://esa.un.org/migration/index.asp?panel=5

Truly Singapore

*The author blogs at http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com

I guess I never would understand why people like to curse and swear against our founding father, MM LKY? disrespect much. MM LKY, being the first PM of Singapore since independence. he surely deserved the credits, especially when Singapore is doing well.

So people like you guys are so hard to be satisfied, you know? curse and swear not recognizing his "success" and "credit" and giving almost ALL credit to his "team"

Everyone here now is able to complain through the gadgets that was brought to us through the success of Singapore. WHAT IF every person of LKY's team remain unchanged and Singapore somehow failed?

No one would blame his team, you know? EVERYONE would blame LKY.

*just like no one would praise the goalkeeper for saving how many goals when the team won, everyone just look at how good the striker is.

BUT when the team lose no one would blame how didn't the striker score as much goals as possible, people just look at the goalkeeper, why didn't he just save that freaking one goal? when he probably had blocked off more than 10 balls before that one goal?*

I don't know about you... but I love living in THE Singapore with our MM LKY around. I really wished and hoped for his good health. I really do held great respect for him. (:

FREE THE PRESS

Did you know about the peaceful Icelandic revolution that took place over the last 5 years? If you didn’t, it is likely because it was never televised or talked about very much at all on mainstream news. One would have to be part of the right websites or Facebook pages to even find out that this has been going on. Why is this the case? Why keep something so monumental hidden from the public?

First let’s discuss what took place with this revolution, then it will become much more clear as to why this was never televised.

It was during a time of a lot of financial turmoil around the world and stories were popping up all over the news of how banks around the world had been crushing or minimizing rebellions by receiving massive bailouts to keep them alive. The Iceland story is different because there was no crushing or ending the rebellion, instead, the people rose up. This is why this was not seen on TV anywhere. If the rest of the world knew that the people won, it may give them some ideas.

During the financial turmoil of 2008 and 2009, the people of Iceland forced their government and banks to resign. How did they do this? Peacefully. The following is a summation of what steps they took over a process of several years, and it all began with each one of them realizing this couldn’t continue.

2008 – The main bank of Iceland is nationalized. The Krona, the currency of Iceland devaluates and the stock market halts. The country is in bankruptcy.

Another key factor of this revolution that we have to look at is that it did not come from a place of violence, bloodshed or anger. No guns or fighting! It was simply people getting together peacefully and working things out. This is something this entire world is capable of but believes is impossible. Humanity has been so programmed to give itself little credit in this department. We always hear about how we need to be governed, there are too many crazy people out there, we need a big brother keeping control. The truth is, without the confines and certain rules the system employs, we would be a much more peaceful people mainly because we are no longer acting in survival mode. Now I am not here to say that the system is the only issue because it isn’t, our programming is also very strong in what we have been taught and believe about ourselves. I am simply here to say, this programming can be broken and our consciousness can and is changing.

I also thought it was a big step to see Iceland employ a new means of choosing it’s leaders. Someone who is an adult and has 30 people supporting them can run. This is great as the only reason why we have educated politicians today is because the elite needs to know that these people are programmed to repeat this system. Generally they also have to have corporate affiliations as well so they know they can be controlled by money.

Now Iceland is proceeding to actually prosecute some of their formerly most powerful bankers and the Icelandic special prosecutor has stated that it very well may indict some 90 people. Meanwhile, over 200 people, including the former chief executives of Iceland’s three biggest banks, face criminal charges for their activities. While I don’t agree with the judgment factor being used here, I understand that this is the step they feel right in taking.

Hopefully more countries around the world begin to follow suit!

Watch the video:

The Singapore News Alternative website hit a very good point. It featured a piece of news that surely is in line with what I said some months back. That is, on one hand the PAPpy govt talks so much about controlling the number of grads to prevent excess grads in the market. On the other hand, its immigration policy is so liberal, it floods the grad supply labour market. What a silly bummer move on the part of the PAPpies.

OPINION: Singapore leaders seek to reduce local graduates as mass intake of foreigners led to excessive supply of degree holders

Note that the ministers themselves send their sons and daughters to unis to make sure they don’t end up as hawkers, crane operators and the like.

Flashback – here is the post I made in Oct last year. Note the same message.

PM Lee, if we need to control varsity intake to prevent jobless grads, why then the liberal immigration policy?

Don’t PAPpy leaders say the darnedest things! So we need to be prudent on our university intake because we don’t want too many jobless grads out in the streets. But isn’t our liberal policy to accept immigrants doing exactly that?

Boyoboy-oboy. Why are we paying our leaders so high to make such self-slapping comments?

Prudence to guide rise in local varsity enrolment

“We don’t want too many Sinkie grads such that foreign grads have to compete with them for jobs….hahahahahaaa..” – the guy in the centre, belching out his trademark larf.

…snip…

Varsity intake policy a sign that govt cannot generate enough jobs for grads -

Yeah, isn’t that the real truth? The PAPpy govt is unable to create enough jobs, so it puts a quota on how many Sinkie grads we should have. Never mind the number of foreign grads PAP wants is infinite.

…snip…

On immigration -

So if the idea is to keep the number of grads at a sustainable level, so that we won’t have an excessive number of jobless grads in the market, why then are we importing foreigners like nobody’s business?

My argument is that we should only accept immigrants with the skills where Singapore is short of. However, our immigration policy is non-transparent and the idea is just to absorb any Tom, Dick and Harry to make the numbers. The only consideration is the race demographics.

This “any immigrant will do” appears to be a crude way of raising govt revenue through GST. For sure, everyone has to eat, drink, buy clothes, live under a roof, travel, etc. By getting the volume of immigrants govt wants, it appears that these people would be raising the GST amount collected.

Conclusion -

This is madness. It is craziness. It just does not make sense. PAP wants to prevent an excess supply of local grads. But they have an unlimited number of foreign grads to flood the labour supply market.

If this were not Sinkiepore but some other country, the useless non-thinking PAPpers would have been voted out of office.

Barrie

* The writer blogs at http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/

Just received this invitation letter [Link] from a friend.

Apparently, RI is organizing some kind of Award Dinner in honor of our Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. The dinner is not cheap – $5,000 to $50,000 per table.

The letter said:

“This year, Raffles Institution will be honoring Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong with the Gryphon Award. This award carries the distinction of being the most prestigious award of the school, and it is an honour of illustrious Rafflesians who have made significant contributions to our community and nation.”

It said that the award dinner is also part of RI’s 190th anniversary celebrations. It will be held at RI on 27 Jul. The money donated is supposed to go to some social cause.

It further stated, “We would like to invite you, a Rafflesian and former community leader, to join us in this meaningful event to honor ESM Goh… lay a strong foundation for the next generation of young Rafflesians who will be inspired to follow the footsteps of ESM Goh and shape the future of our nation.”

When I read the last part, I nearly choked. What has this ESM Goh done to “inspire” our youngsters follow his footsteps?

More critically, what has he done for Singaporeans when he was the PM?

I can only think of 2 bloody things:

• Foreign Talent Policy
• Asset Enhancement Policy

And this idiot who screwed us with this 2 policies deserves to be honored with what Graphite Award?

I say, “Pui! Pui! Pui!”.

Thanks to his stupid policies, we are now stuck with 40% of FTs in this little Singapore competing with us for jobs. HDB flats relative to income are much more expensive now compared to the time in 90s.

My plea to the organizer. Please don’t give him any Graphite Award. I think he deserves at best, a graphite pencil.

Sibeh Tulan

The 29-year-old intern abused by his boss at a sofware company, Mr Alan Lee, may fear his temper and violent behaviour but he also commanded admiration in certain aspects from him.

Mr Lee was thrusted into the media spotlight after a video of him repeatedly striking the 29-year-old on his head went viral when a fellow intern recorded the incident and uploaded it online.

Speaking in an interview with Chinese newspaper Lianhe Wanbao, the intern said that while he respected Mr Lee's professionalism, knowledge and skills, his boss had a mean streak about him.

"At first, I thought he was an ok person. But later, I realised he would be easily agitated whenever I did something wrong."

Mr Lee had layed his hands on his 29-year-old subordinate several times -- he was slapped seven times and punched once -- throughout his 2 1/2 stint as an IT consultant with Encore eServices.

According to the intern, the flashpoint caught on camera was ignited after Mr Lee asked him why he did not report a problem with a client to him.

He tried to think of an answer to reply Mr Lee and when the question was repeated, he replied that he had forgotten about it.

That response seemed to agitate the boss, who raised his voice and struck the intern. He struck again after the 29-year-old remained silent.

When the intern's parents confronted Mr Lee about this, he justified his actions as a form of 'teaching' as he treated the intern "like a little brother".

He also apologised profusely to the parents but they were unmoved and told him that they were going to lodge a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower and file a civil suit against him.

Throughout his stint at the company, the intern opted to keep mum about the beatings as he didn't want to drag Mr Lee's family into this.

What he could not describe in words back then, he did it in drawing as he showed off a caricature of Mr Lee depicted as a fear-inducing man in a tiger's skin while handcuffed to an iron ball.

He has since tendered his resignation from the company through email, and has received a few job offers, including one which pays $3,000 -- a far cry from the $500 allowance he was given a month despite clocking up 12-hours shift daily.

He told the newspaper that he plans to move on from this incident, and thanked readers for their concern through a letter.

"Through this incident, I have understood the importance of the rights I enjoy as an employee", he wrote.

Written by Ng E-Jay
27 May 2013

In a media interview to mark Public Service Week, Civil Service Head Peter Ong said that the public service needs to do things differently, putting people at the centre, and moving to a more relational government which is a government with the people, where citizens participate in working at solutions for the country.

Unfortunately, his statements come in the wake of rising resentment against government policies, more frequent threats of legal action against netizens, and the increased use of state power against social and civil activists.

We have had two major rallies at Hong Lim Park against the Population White Paper which projects that the population may be allowed to rise as high as 6.9 million by the year 2030. Unofficial hearsay suggests that the government may be planning for as high as a 7 or 8 million population, which is not out of the question given the government’s propensity at blunting the trauma of highly unpleasant policies by releasing incremental data rather than giving the whole truth at once to the citizenry.

The widespread consultation that was used in the preparation of the Population White Paper turned out to be nothing more than a giant farce, if the planners and the script writers actually thought that a 6.9 million figure could ever be politically digestible. Where is government with the people in this instance?

Peter Ong also said that Public Service will need to get a better sense and understanding of the ground, because of the changing profile of the population, and there is a need to understand the full range of issues affecting the broad citizenry.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8355
 

Recently, I got a rude shock from my insurer when it sent me a letter regarding the adjustment of my family’s health insurance premiums.

My wife’s premium will go up by 60 per cent and my two children’s premiums will shoot up 57 per cent. My premium will increase by 67.5 per cent this year and, next year, when I reach the next age bracket, it will increase 136 per cent from the present amount.

I have not seen the end of these increases and this comes as our Health Ministry is encouraging citizens to seek better health insurance coverage.

With such rates of increase, I wonder how much longer we can afford our coverage. Sharp spikes like these will force many to consider downgrading or dropping their policies. This is ironic and against the spirit of what the Government is advocating.

I checked with our insurer and was told that the increase was due to some minor additions such as extended coverage of inpatient psychiatric treatment and short stays in emergency departments. But I feel the increase is just too much for the additional coverage offered.

Such rates of increase make me wonder about the health costs my children will face when they become independent adults.

Perhaps this is another one reason some people hold negative views of having children.

John Teo