Two of the three people behind The Real Singapore (TRS), a socio-political website, have been arrested.
This follows a Feb 4 article where the duo are said to have embellished an article posted by a witness of an incident during the recent Thaipusam festival.
The TRS article had claimed a Filipino family had sparked an exchange which led to three Singaporean men being arrested on Feb 3.
But no Filipino family was involved.
The original author of the article also denied the involvement of a Filipino family.
Police confirmed the arrest of a Singaporean, 26 and an Australian woman, 22.
The two were arrested on Feb 6 under the Sedition Act and investigations into the case are ongoing.
When Singaporeans are retrenched, they are left out in the cold with no financial protection. Through no fault of theirs, retrenched workers suddenly find themselves in uncertainty and hardship.
Low-wage workers are especially vulnerable as they have no say in company restructuring or the factors that cause MNCs to relocate their operations. This affects even middle-income professionals in the fields of life sciences and hospitality.
Unexpected lay-offs cause severe strain on the entire family with serious social repercussions. Even though income stops, the bills don’t. The family still needs to eat, children still need to go to school, and electricity bills still need to be paid.
On the other end, when CEOs and top managers are let go, they are given golden handshakes, sometimes worth millions of dollars.
To remedy such an imbalance, the SDP proposes a retrenchment insurance scheme called RESTART (Re-Employment Scheme and Temporary Assistance for the ReTrenched) for our workers who find themselves laid-off from work.
Here’s how it works:
If a worker is retrenched, RESTART pays him/her 75% of last drawn salary for 1st 6 months, 50% for 2nd 6 months, and 25% for final 6 months.
The payout stops once the individual is re-employed or 18 months after retrenchment.
The payout capped at the prevailing median wage (which is $3,770 as of 2014). This means that a retrenched employee earning $3,200/month would be paid $2,400 for the first 6 months and so on whereas an employee earning $5,000/month would get paid 75% of $3,770 for the first 6 months.
MOM will assist the retrenched individual to seek re-employment and help match his/her skill- and salary-level to new job where possible.
The individual can reject only up to 3 job offers.
Based on a 5% unemployment rate, we estimate RESTART’s budget to be $2 billion a year. This budget will come from
the state (80%), employers (10%) and workers (10%)
employees’ contributions are made on a sliding scale with the higher-income groups paying more
employers would match their employees’ contributions dollar for dollar
Such a hybrid system of financing would spread out the fiscal responsibility to all stakeholders.
To prevent abuse of the programme, those relieved of their work due to misconduct, resign from their jobs or worked with the company for less than a year will not be eligible for RESTART.
As the name, suggests, RESTART is meant to provide temporary assistance to retrenched workers and to help them get back on their feet to contribute to the economy. It will help to reduce tension and hardship for families, keeping our social fabric secure and strong.
Some of us might be bewildered by what happened in Parliament last week, when a motion was tabled to discuss at length about the Accounting General’s investigation into the finances of Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council.
Two whole days were spent niggling over the finances of a single town council, with various Ministers taking the stand to chastise, lambast, accuse and denigrate the effectiveness and integrity of the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament in charge of AHPETC, who then had to defend themselves against these allegations.
That was followed up by countless media reports, and even all the way to this week, we can hear the topic being discussed on national radio. The circus continues.
With such a big fuss, what exactly was the issue about, you might ask?
The Minister for National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan would have you believe that it was about transparency and accountability. Much was said about how AHPETC was not able to cobble together a proper audit report, the figures were all in a mess, and how the way its managing agent attended to the affairs of the town council was anything but lawful.
Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim
Indeed, AHPETC has a lot to answer for. The dearth of any managing agent or existing company willing to take up contracts run by opposition party town councils might mean the need for the party to appoint a preferred vendor that has little experience in running such affairs, but it then becomes the party’s obligation to ensure that nothing should ever slip through the cracks.
This has nothing to do with the risk of being picked on by their opposition, but the simple need to break in new vendors and ensure they can more than adequately comply with existing regulations.
Yet for all the accountably owing, is this issue worthy of time in Parliament and national media? In truth, AHPETC needs to address the concerns of its residents in how their money had been used. This issue is at best a municipal one, hardly worth a two-day debate in the House.
In spite of all the red marks AHPETC received in its annual town council audits by MND, to question the effectiveness of its leaders is very different from questioning their integrity. In fact, putting the same spotlight of scrutiny that AGO had on any other town council might have yielded similar results.
What is of national concern, however, was not given the air time it deserves in Parliament. We are talking about many millions more, given to the government led by the ruling People’s Action Party for the management of the nation, yet with clear transgressions of proper accountability. We are talking about yet another report by AGO, this time on the financial irregularities in government agencies. This is not money given to one town council, but money that an entire nation of tax-payers had entrusted to the government. Were any of these financial issues debated as robustly as AHPETC’s finances?
Oddly, a recent media report on radio, where reporters actually went to the Aljunied ward to talk to residents to get their views on the issue, indicated that residents generally trust AHPETC to do the right thing, and indeed, their neighbourhoods are no worse than before despite the fracas.
Heng Swee Keat
That aside, it is perhaps a tad contradictory that the actions by Mr Heng’s colleague should disagree with his concerns for the residents. For all the review to the Town Council Act that Mr Khaw had promised, his Ministry’s decision on the matter was to withhold about S$7 million of service and conservancy charges grants for the financial year 2014 from AHPETC until it can fill in the gaps for its finances.
Is this withholding of funds meant to penalise AHPETC, or to punish the residents? Where exactly is PAP’s focus on this issue? Has it lost focus, or did it have any to begin with?
In net effect, the berating of AHPETC using precious time in Parliament was not about accountability. It was also not about the rights of citizens, as the actions of MND have proved. But if it was about politics, then it was clearly not the smart kind.
Indeed, Mr Heng had claimed that the issue was not about partisan politics. Perhaps he was right. Partisan politics would require that you put in some effort to defend your party’s interest against your opponent. What we saw in Parliament last week was little more than the PAP going for WP’s jugular, completely disregarding that the ground had already been stained with its own blood.
PAP, in letting its key office holders loose to freely attack WP, need to realise that the residents of Alijunied, Hougang and Punggol East did not vote in WP because they wanted MPs who are fantastic at running their estates. By PAP’s own admission – and in case it has forgotten – WP won because voters wanted WP to be their voice in Parliament.
Last week, voters saw that voice being drowned out in Parliament and in media. One can only wonder what their reaction might be, come the next general elections.
If this had been about projecting a positive perception among the electorate, WP might have taken a bruising, but it was surely the PAP that has bashed itself to a pulp. But of course, it is not. It has been about, and will always be told to be about, public accountability and the interest of residents – if you would believe it.
It is sad to read in the Straits Times of 29 Jan of the amount of trash left behind at the Laneway Music festival at the Gardens by the Bay.
The reasons given by audience were, it didn’t occur to me to take my trash away when I left because there was trash everywhere left by others. That they assume the organizers will hire cleaners. That the cleaning fees should be built into the price of the ticket. I can totally understand why The Prime Minister was disgusted and took the example of the Myanmar football fans picking up all their litter before they left the National Stadium. In the same article in the Straits Times it was reported that a National Environment Survey of 2012 stated that one third of the respondents will litter if they could get away with it. Why did this happen, why is our society become so uncaring, where is the social norm?
I think this problem started about 30 years ago when the Government started to increase the salary of the Ministers to be in line with top earners of different professions. The increase was rapid. The Government introduced Market Norms to their salaries and to their professions. About 20 years ago, the Government stopped building hawker centres and wet markets, they left it to private organizations to do it, again the Government introduced Market Norms to what was basically a social requirement.
There were many other instances that the Government chose market considerations over social needs.
Any zealous practice of Market Norms will unfortunately affect Social Norms. The role of any Government should be more social than market and not only has to be but also has to be seen to be. When the Government is identified as a Market Norm, the general populace will take the cue and behave and act accordingly. When society switches to Market Norms then everything is a transaction, hence the remarks by one of the audience at the Laneway Music Festival; that the cleaning fees should be built into the price of the ticket. Same applies to many antisocial behavior; like illegal parking; if caught I’ll pay. Not returning the trays after a meal at the hawker centre; the cost of collecting the trays is built into the price of the food. There are so many examples of society lacking social consciousness.
It is sad that Market Norms have taken over in our daily lives, transaction is the way of life, social norms and social consciousness have taken a back seat.
Singapore is a mixture of different races with no dominant culture and philosophy, with a dominant political party that rules Singapore for the past 50 years, their style of governance inadvertently setting the way we conduct our lives and social behavior.
Always remember, people take cues from the Government, no amount of kindness and courtesy campaigns will change people’s attitudes, it is the example set by the Government and the way they govern that will determine society’s social behavior.
It is of little use to compare ourselves with Taiwan and Japan on social consciousness, they are a homogeneous society with a dominant culture and most importantly their governments’ priorities to social and market norms is different from ours.
Miss Norsiah has since updated her facebook page to explain that NTUC has confirmed that there is no 30c charge on the exchange of notes to coins but they are unable to do anything against the PRC woman involved.
They explained that their cameras aren’t good enough and they have no audio to verify what happened:
NTUC called………that staff will b closely monitored n observed only…………………….because their camera cannot zoom in & see the $1.70 (new $1 coin, new 50cents coin 20cents coin) & also no voice recorder to record conversation…that staff will b send for conversational english coz she claims she dont understand wat im saying!!!
BUT surprisingly she knows how 2 take my $2 & return me $1.70 when i ask her for coin exchange & surprisingly too, she knows how 2 use NTUC name to say NTUC now charge 4 coins exchange!!! I guess she doesnt know the meaning of “receipt” dats y when i ask her receipt for 30cents (3times) she doesnt know……so sad……….
“receipt” i think the basic she need to know if in sales line….funny…..dont understand receipt but know how to say “FORGET” to return my 30cents……..so, in conclusion, they will still keep that staff!!
So, NTUC shoppers, take note that as confirmed by NTUC, no 30cents will be charge for coins exchange.
So NTUC shoppers, beware of this desperado, money-faced china-lai woman!!
—-
Dear TRS,
Please be careful about this PRC cheat at NTUC and remind your readers to be vigilant of other, similar scams.
I saw this photo being shared online showing that a woman, apparently a PRC, was trying to scam customers at NTUC.
When one lady approached to change her $2 note for coins so she could get a trolley, the PRC staff at the customer service counter gave her $1.70 and claimed that there was a 30c charge for exchanging.
When the woman came back a short while later asking for a receipt, the PRC woman act blur and then say she ‘forgot’ to give her 30c.
How can NTUC allow such foreign staff with no integrity come here and essentially try and steal money?
Please be careful of such scams. Even though the money might be small, if this type of scam is allowed to happen we are letting our image as a safe and law abiding country go down the drain.
