Tag: Singaporeans

  • NTUC FoodFare To Review Price Caps At Hawker Centres After Criticism

    NTUC FoodFare To Review Price Caps At Hawker Centres After Criticism

    Following sharp criticism from hawkers on the price caps to be imposed at its new Bukit Panjang hawker centre, NTUC Foodfare said today (July 29) that these limits – which were intended to keep basic meals affordable – would be reviewed from time to time if necessary, to take into account the cost of ingredients and inflation. Stallholders can also submit requests to adjust the price ceilings, it added.

    Foodfare was appointed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to operate the Bukit Panjang hawker centre, which is the second of 20 new hawker centres to be managed by social enterprises and cooperatives.

    Tender documents for the hawker centre, which is slated to open by the end of this year, state that each stall should offer at least two items that are capped at certain prices. The price of dishes such as fishball noodle, nasi lemak and chicken rice are capped at between S$2.50 and S$2.70. The price ceilings for Western food are higher, such as S$5.80 for pasta.

    Responding to TODAY’s queries, Foodfare said: “These caps are not to be held indefinitely and reviews would certainly be made should raw materials price increase or other cost pressures make it necessary for the adjustments.”

    It reiterated the rationale for the price caps, saying that it “wants a public hawker centre to have affordable food for everyone”. Interested hawkers would have to submit, in their bids, the amount of rent they can pay – this will make up 40 per cent of the assessment criteria. The remaining 60 per cent involves “(food) pricing, food variety and concept, experience and taste”, Foodfare said.

    In 2012, the Hawker Centre Public Consultation Panel proposed having social enterprises manage new hawker centres, and having the operator setting aside stalls for the lower income and special needs persons to set up low cost businesses. Hawker centres are currently managed and run by the NEA.

    The first of 20 new hawker centres will open at Ci Yuan Community Club in Hougang Avenue 9 next Thursday. It will also be managed on a not-for-profit basis by Fei Siong Food Management. Stall holders at this hawker centre are required to offer at least two products that are priced at S$2.80 or lower. A Fei Siong spokesperson said all stallholders will pay a total of S$2,200 each month, including rental.

    The hawkers are required to operate their stalls for 12 hours a day and “work with the management to ensure their off days do not disrupt the business operations and dining experience”, the spokesperson said. “The stallholders’ commitment is a key fundamental to the success of their operations and the hawker centre,” she added.

    HAWKERS UNHAPPY WITH NEW MODEL

    The new hawker centre management model came under the spotlight this week after Minister of Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan responded to a Facebook post by Mr Douglas Ng, a hawker who attended a tender briefing by Foodfare.

    Mr Ng, who runs a stall at Golden Mile hawker centre, spoke out against the price caps. “Do you actually think that a quality hawker will come out with quality food when they use quality ingredients and if the cost of food is so high…If the basic ingredients are so expensive, how can we expect hawkers to make a living?” he said. Responding to Mr Ng on Monday, Mr Balakrishnan reiterated the steps that his ministry has taken to reduce rental costs for hawkers. He added that he had “made it clear to Foodfare that they are not to charge high rents”.

    Speaking to TODAY, Mr Ng, 24, said there is a lack of transparency in how the price ceilings are derived. “Why is it that Western food can be sold at double the price of fishball noodles? It makes all of us want to sell pasta instead…then how do we preserve hawker heritage?”

    Makansutra founder and food writer KF Seetoh also took issue with the price caps and the lack of a guideline on rental bids. “When top restaurants raise prices for the rich, not many really cares, but when the hawkers do, the loud and richer ones make noise and cry foul… Please don’t politicise our hawker food and don’t kill our hawker culture,” he said.

    Other hawkers also raised concerns such as the required operating hours and higher overhead costs at these new hawker centres.

    Ms Li Ruifang, 31, who owns 545 Whampoa Prawn Noodles at Tekka Centre, had failed with her bid to run a stall at the hawker centre at Ci Yuan Community Club. She said: “Although we only open for business seven to nine hours a day, we spend another five hours preparing food and washing the stall. I will have to double my manpower or increase my own (working) hours just to make this ruling, and that will increase costs.”

    Mr Melvin Chew, who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck & Kway Chap at Chinatown Food Complex, added: “Hawkers at the new food centres have to pay plate collection and dishwashing fees, use common utensils and uniforms. They are run like food courts, not hawker centres.”

    An NEA spokesperson said that while the respective managing enterprises have the prerogative to decide on the price caps, it will monitor the implementation of the new management model and the concerns that may be raised by hawkers.

    It added that it is open to the idea – which has been suggested by some hawkers – of concession passes for seniors and low-income individuals, in place of price caps, should the operators decide to take it up.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Jail, Cane For Man Who Preyed On Young Teenage Girls

    Jail, Cane For Man Who Preyed On Young Teenage Girls

    Using a fake name, he befriended young girls on Facebook. Once he tricked the girls into meeting him, the 30-year-old would ask for various sexual favours.

    In a span of about two months, security supervisor Benjamin Sim preyed on four underage girls, aged between 11 and 13, this way — getting them to send him nude photos, perform oral sex on him in public places and having sex in his home.

    Today (July 29), Sim was sentenced to a jail term of 20 years and six months, as well as 24 strokes of the cane, the maximum number allowed, for the various offences he committed between November 2012 and January 2013.

    He faced 23 charges in total, but only eight — related to statutory rape, sexual penetration of a minor under 14, sexual exploitation of a child, and possession of a film without a valid licence — were proceeded with.

    Sim’s modus operandi was to add the girls on his Facebook page, introducing himself as “Peter Tan”, before exchanging numbers and then meeting up with them.

    Soon after meeting the girls, he would ask them for various sexual favours.

    On one occasion, Sim performed oral sex on his 13-year-old victim in the back of a taxi, after picking her up from school. They then alighted at his condominium in Woodleigh, and had sex in Sim’s bedroom. He later gave the victim S$20 to take a taxi home.

    Two of his victims were a pair of twins, then in Secondary One. Sim bought them a handphone each, so that they could communicate with him without their parents noticing.

    His relationship with the twins came to light, after their mother found one of the new handphones on Dec 15, 2012, and proceeded to lodge a police report the next day.

    Sim’s real identity was discovered only after police investigations, and he was arrested and remanded in February last year.

    Deputy Public Prosecutor Zhong Zewei had asked for a jail term of 20 to 22 years, coupled with 24 strokes of the cane, to be meted out, citing Sim’s sexual exploitation of the young girls and his lack of self-control.

    In his defence, lawyer Edmond Pereira portrayed Sim as a person with “lower than normal” intelligence and little self-esteem. The accused had adopted the name “Peter Tan” as an act of escapism, said Mr Pereira.

    As Justice Tay Yong Kwang delivered the sentence, which was backdated to Sim’s remand, his eyes reddened, and he dropped his head into his hands.

    Sim’s father left the courtroom, while his mother and two brothers lingered around to speak with him.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Foreigner Tells Singaporeans Not To Expect Special Treatment Just Because of Local Status

    Foreigner Tells Singaporeans Not To Expect Special Treatment Just Because of Local Status

    If you’re qualified, employers will hire you. Don’t like low paying jobs?

    But now complaining your government doesn’t protect your rights.

    Yes, I don’t know Singapore much, I visited the country for just 3 days and in a very short period of time I see it’s a very expensive country to work and live in.

    If your country will hire me for a high salary of my demand, I couldn’t care less about your battle cry. If your country wouldn’t hire your young fresh graduates, highly qualified professionals, then why not find a job in other country?

    All you do is whine and complain, why don’t you put yourselves in the test and try finding a job in a foreign land.

    If you’re that confident about your qualifications but your country doesn’t want you to work for them, why continuously cry like a bunch of spoiled brats waiting for their parents to feed them.

    Explore your options if you have the qualifications. Don’t expect your country to give you special treatments just because you’re a local.

    It happens globally, if you’re a local with exceptional talent and very qualified, employers will drool all over you.

    But mediocre qualification and skill, don’t be too picky.

    That’s why other people call you racist, not me, just to be clear. If you truly believe you’re as qualified as the next foreign worker beside you, don’t push them out of your beloved country, compete with them head-on.

    And may the best employee win.

    Posted by: the game

    Editor’s note: this article is retrieved from a comment posted on our site.

     

    Source: www.transitioning.org

  • A Reality Check For All Opposition Parties

    A Reality Check For All Opposition Parties

    I might be flamed by fellow opposition supporters for saying this, but I feel it’s better if we opposition supporters voice out our concerns BEFORE the upcoming GE.

    Firstly, not all opposition parties have the same status. The strongest opposition party at the moment is the WP which has 7 parliamentary seats and 2 non-constituency members of parliament. The WP is stable, has good leadership, party discipline, a strong brand name, strong grassroots network and has managed to attract a critical mass of skilled professionals. These factors explain why the WP has a better image and thus a better chance of winning than the other opposition parties. As was seen in the Punggol East by-election, in a multi-cornered fight, the WP candidate will attract a much larger share of votes than the minor opposition parties.

    Next in the ranking of the opposition parties, is the SDP. Why? Because this is a party with a history, alternative policies and a clear ideology. SDP’s grassroots potential is underused but not lacking, as it seems to be able to attract social activists and other liberals. Say what you may about the SDP but at least it does not give the image that it is an unstable party that lacks people. The party website is well designed and is kept up to date. SDP’s decision to pull out of the Punggol by-election and avoid being a spoiler earned it goodwill from opposition supporters and thus the SDP’s image was not tarnished by a great defeat. The SDP may have committed some blunders such as implying that they were unwilling to run a town council, but they have corrected that mistake! They realized that they have to turn their attention to municipal matters too. And thus, earlier this year, they published a paper detailing their plans on running a town council. The SDP is not perfect, but if your constituency is not contested by WP, it’s your best bet if you want an opposition win.

    Why did I not list the SPP which has 1 NCMP as the second pick for opposition supporters? Last GE, we saw a nationwide 6.5% vote swing AWAY from the PAP. Thus, every constituency that was also contested by the opposition in 2006 saw a larger percentage of the votes gained by the opposition in 2011. All constituencies save for one – Potong Pasir. SPP instead saw their votes in Potong Pasir drop by 6%, leading to their narrow loss of a safe seat to the PAP’s Sitoh Yi Pin!

    This is largely due to the choice of SPP to field Lina Chiam who was intended to be Chiam See Tong’s successor. This is widely perceived to be the reason why SPP lost. Mrs Chiam was not eloquent enough at her rallies. Nor did she attack the PAP candidate sufficiently. Most importantly, she did not manage to convince the swing voters that she had a good chance of winning against the PAP candidate. That was why there were 242 spoiled votes. If just half these votes had gone to SPP, she would have won!

    I’m not against SPP but I’m just saying that SPP has to deal with these REAL perceptions if they intend to field Mrs Chiam in Potong Pasir again. A party only stands a decent chance if it can generate hype among its supporters. Supporters and swing voters have to be convinced that the party can win. Remember, Sitoh Yi Pin has been the incumbent MP for Potong Pasir for 4 years now and he has a huge advantage over Mrs Chiam. It is no longer 50-50 as was the case in 2011. Even other opposition parties like the DPP are doubting Mrs Chiam’s ability to win again. That is why these opportunists want to cause a multi-cornered fight in Potong Pasir.

    SPP can still win back Potong Pasir if they field someone younger, whose appeal to the voters is stronger. If they wish to revive Mr Chiam’s legacy while renewing SPP, then why not field Mr Chiam’s daughter? As Nicole Seah proved in the last GE, it is possible for a young, eloquent and inspiring female politician to generate sufficient hype to shift the vote towards her party, even against a strong incumbent from the ruling party.

    SPP has been gifted with the entry of strong opposition personalities like Ravi Philemon and Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss, who is poised to give the PAP a tough fight at Mountbatten SMC once again. So why not build on that to renew the party’s overall image? I hope SPP can see the bigger picture and try to attract back swing voters.

    All the other opposition parties are not main contenders. NSP received a lot of bad publicity after GE2011 because they went through a change of 5 secretary generals in such a short time and furthermore lost almost all their top candidates in the last GE to other political parties. Singfirst and PPP are new parties with no history and swing voters usually stick to established parties when they vote. RP and SDA have been discredited by their secretary generals losing their deposits in the Punggol by-election. These parties will be entering the upcoming GE with voters perceiving them to have a low chance of winning. They have a lot of hard work ahead of them. It will be an uphill task for them to win a seat in parliament.

    Harold

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Zulfikar Shariff: Elected MPs Do Not Represent The Malay/Muslim Community

    Zulfikar Shariff: Elected MPs Do Not Represent The Malay/Muslim Community

    There is a common misunderstanding on the role and appointment of Malay MPs and the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs.

    There are regular comments from the Muslim community that as our leaders and representatives, it is the duty of these MPs and Minister to fight for our interests. They ask why the MPs have not fought for the hijab, why they did not fight against the destruction of masjid, or the removal of wakaf.

    While it is expected that a Muslim will do all he can for the community, we should not be mistaken into thinking that these MPs and Minister are our representatives.

    Let us be clear how they were appointed. And what role the Muslim community played in their appointment.

    The Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, according to the government, is the Apex of Muslim leadership in Singapore.

    And yet, he was not appointed by the Muslim community.

    He became a Minister by virtue of his political position.

    Lee Hsien Loong (and the PAP) nominated Yaacob Ibrahim to be a candidate in the last election.

    The Muslim community did not nominate him.

    He was elected by the Moulmein-Kallang GRC, of which about 80% are non Muslims to administer their constituency.

    The Muslim community did not elect him.

    Lee Hsien Loong then appointed him to be Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs.

    The Muslim community did not appoint him.

    In which part of this process was the Muslim community involved?

    He was nominated by the PAP as a candidate, elected by his constituency to be an MP and appointed by Hsien Loong to be Minister.

    How did he become our representative?

    Let us be clear…

    He is not our representative.

    He is the PAP’s representative to manage the Muslim community.

    His job is to represent the PAP’s interests to the Muslim community.

    Not the reverse. That he is a Muslim and may voice his opinions on the community’s concern is incidental. That is not his function as Minister.

    The community had no role in his appointment. We should not assume he is our representative.

    Treat him as the PAP’s representative. Thats it.

    Yaacob Ibrahim and the Malay MPs are not our representatives.

    They represent the PAP to our community.

    Once we understand that, Insha Allah, it makes our engagement with the government much clearer.

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

deneme bonusu