Tag: levy

  • Exposing Half-Truths Behind Certis Cisco’s Taiwanese Recruitment

    Exposing Half-Truths Behind Certis Cisco’s Taiwanese Recruitment

    I refer to “Certis Cisco recruiting officers from Taiwan”. There’s more than meets the eye.

    Certis Cisco (CC), a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, was supposed to have advertised, but probably did not, on the Jobs Bank.

    Temasek Holdings, which owns or is the major shareholder of government-linked companies, employs hundreds of thousands of cheaper (sometimes not) foreigners. So long as PAP continues to run Singapore as a corporation, Singaporeans should not expect our FT policy to be discarded.

    Our FT policy also generates revenue for the government, as in the case of CC’s Taiwanese recruitment.

    CC’s actual total cost – including the cost of levy and accommodation – of employing a Taiwanese officer with a degree is about $4000. Why CC is willing to pay so much to hire a foreigner is because part of its costs, eg S-Pass is in fact revenue to the government. Should CC employ a local, PAP earns nothing.

    CC is likely to house its foreigner workforce at accommodations managed by EM Services or other GLCs. Through PAP’s FT policy, the government, GLCs and Temasek are clearly the winners at Singaporeans’ expense.

    CC is willing to pay:
    – A monthly salary of $2675
    – Free accommodation (estimated cost $500)
    – Total bonus of $4000 upon completion of 2-year contract
    – $650 for S-Pass

    * $4000/24 months

    From the table above, it will cost CC at least $3991 per month to employ a Taiwanese. This excludes other miscellaneous costs such as return air ticket, additional overseas recruitment costs,etc.

    Hiring foreigners come with social costs and CC should actually offer a premium when hiring Singaporeans.

    CC spokesman was therefore telling an outright half truth when she said “The manpower shortage is a perennial situation in Singapore, and we have been working with the authorities to recruit from suitable alternative sources”.

    CC did not offer to hire Singaporeans based on the total higher amount it was willing to pay a foreigner, ie costs of levy and accommodation amounting to more than $1000 were excluded.

    A foreigner with a monthly levy of, say, $500 adds up to $6000 in yearly government revenue. Multiply this by 500,000 foreigners, PAP earns $3 billion yearly without generating any economic activity and at the stroke of a pen. Who really needs scholars to run Singapore when money drops from the sky?

    Monthly levy collection: $500
    Yearly levy collecion: $6000
    X 500,000 foreign workers: $3 billion
    X 1,000,000 foreign workers: $6 billion

    From the above, one should be able to understand clearly why Lau Goh’s FT policy will be here for good.

    For jobless and retrenched Singaporeans, you-die-your-own-business policy has always applied. But don’t say the PAP has no compassion – it has schemes such as WIS in place. So long as one is willing to accept any low-wage job and forego one’s dignity, the WIS recipient will receive a regular peanuts cash and CPF contribution.

    PAP must continue hiring foreigners to increase headcount because an increased population density supports increasing property prices. PAP’s economic growth model has always relied on foreigner population – not productivity – growth.

    Minister Shanmugam has also recently said that only Singaporeans, Singapore PRs and Malaysians are eligible to apply. Is CC, under Temasek CEO Ho Ching, able to suka suka override the Law Minister? Why were Taiwanese suddenly included in the hiring pool with no debate in Parliament?

    CC has obviously not advertised in Malaysian states as the response would have been overwhelming. From the same table above, the salary and bonus alone amounted to a monthly salary $2841 – equivalent to about 8700 Malaysian ringgit.

    Since lodging is provided, a Malaysian recruit can easily save $2000 every month, or about RM6000. CC wants to take Singaporeans for idiots – not a single Malaysian wanted the job and it has to recruit 120 officers from Taiwan.

    PAP’s FT policy generates revenue for the government through levy collection, eg S-Pass, increases revenue/profit for government-linked companies by lowering costs and ultimately increases Temasek’s profits. This is done at the expense of Singaporeans.

    It should therefore not have surprised anyone when a GLC like Certis Cisco engages in half truths to recruit foreigners living 3000 km away.

     

    Source: https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/

  • Singaporean Netizens Divided On Possible Charges For Plastic Bags

    Singaporean Netizens Divided On Possible Charges For Plastic Bags

    What do Singaporean netizens care about?

    Apparently, charges on plastic bags used during supermarket shopping trips.

    According to a report on Channel NewsAsia at around 10pm last night, “local supermarket chains could impose a plastic bag charge if there is an industry-wide effort to implement one”.

    The statement comes as a response to environmental group Zero Waste’s call for the Government to introduce charges on the use of plastic bags among Singaporeans.

    Executive director of Zero Waste, Mr Eugene Tay, said: “If there is a charge [for plastic bags] then people will start thinking about how can they reduce the plastic bags that they take.”

    The group proposed that retailers charge their customers 10 cents and 5 cents for large and smaller plastic bags respectively, which already sparked discussions on Facebook on the feasibility of the solution.

    For example, a netizen said, “Most dwellers use plastic bags to recycle as trash bag. Imagine them dumping trash directly into our rubbish chutes. It would be environmentally unhygienic when the waste foods start rotting inside.”

    On the Government side, Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Environment and Water Resources firmly stated that it should be the big supermarkets’ duty to carry out this proposal, as “The Government should look at education; look at bigger issues on the environment, not just plastic bags, per se.”

    Spokespeople from the Dairy Farm group (which owns Cold Storage and Giant), and NTUC FairPrice have come forward to tell CNA that at the moment, they already have incentives and efforts in place to reduce the dependence on plastic bags by their shoppers.

    NTUC's"Bring Your Own Bag, FairPrice Green Rewards Scheme" / Image Credit: TODAY
    NTUC’s”Bring Your Own Bag, FairPrice Green Rewards Scheme” / Image Credit: TODAY

    Singaporeans are said to use a whopping 2.5 billion plastic bags each year, and according to statistics from the National Environment Agency’s website, 824,600 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in 2015.

    From the latest report, it does seem like these big supermarket chains have decided to respond, albeit without promising anything concrete, to the proposal.

    Singaporean Netizens Debate

    In response to the news, netizens seem to be somewhat divided.

    One begged for others to look at the “bigger issue” as compared to potential inconveniences:

    "The rubbish thrown down the chute doesn't just disappear into thin air y'know."
    “The rubbish thrown down the chute doesn’t just disappear into thin air y’know.”

    Some have mentioned how it is “long overdue”, and suggested ways that the implementation can be carried out:

    screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-28-17-am
    “[…] Provide one or two reusable shopping bags to the low income group.”
    screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-32-03-am
    “For those who [don’t request for plastic bags], you pay them instead.”

    One called for the Government to take the lead, in light of other nations already taking nationwide steps to reduce plastic waste:

    "So come on Singapore Government [...]
    “So come on Singapore Government […] make it compulsory across the industry”
    screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-28-27-am
    “Adding charges to [the] consumer is definitely not the way to go.”

    However, some are adamantly against the potential changes, and have spoken out strongly against it:

    screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-28-39-am
    “Don’t buy the hype”
    screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-28-54-am
    “[It’s utter] nonsense.”

    Regardless, the sentiments can be accurately summarised in this particular thread, and the number of ‘likes’ for each polarising comment:

    Screenshot from CNA's Facebook page
    Screenshot from CNA’s Facebook page

    Online Grocery Providers Can Be Pioneers In Environmentally-Friendly Practices 

    What’s interesting though, is the fact that a few have taken to the news as even more reason to grocery shop online.

    screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-42-30-am
    Netizen cites saving time and money on taxi rides

    The online grocery shopping scene is a highly competitive one, with honestbee and RedMart being among the few big players in the (pun intended) market.

    honestbee team / Image Credit: Vulcan Post
    honestbee team / Image Credit: Vulcan Post

    An increasing number of Singaporeans, even without the plastic bag charge fiasco, have been turning to these online providers due to the convenience that comes with the services, especially in light of their busy schedules and the need for a means of transport after an intense grocery shopping session.

    Perhaps then, these providers can be the pioneers in encouraging environmentally-friendly practices, and use recyclable bags for their clients’ purchases.

    Regardless, the issue seems to be still in pending mode, and there’s no certainty on what the verdict will be.

     

    Source: https://vulcanpost.com