Tuesday, April 29, 2025
30.2 C
Singapore
Home Blog Page 5200

Get real, MOM

0

By Bernard Pereira

Pic Credit: TOC
Pic Credit: TOC

Many employers, I suspect, are getting away with blue murder when they misclassify their workers as “Independent Contractors”  instead of “Employees”.

The main reason is obvious: they want to bypass the CPF contribution requirement, in particular, and other fringe benefits due to the worker.

Is the Ministry of Manpower aware of this malpractice? Of course, it is. Will it be taking these unscrupulous employers to task?

On 18 Oct 2013, a Bloomberg report highlighted this malpractice in the US where some companies hired workers and deliberately designated them as “independent contractors” to avoid paying insurance, taxes, fair wages and overtime.

The practice had become so rampant that states from New York to California decided to take steps to crack down on employers who improperly classified their workers or failed to declare their income.

Thirty states instituted laws on worker misclassification, up from 23 in 2010. Tennessee was the latest to follow suit on July 1.

Among the companies that were taken to task in Tennessee, one employer stood out by bucking the trend, Danny Odom, chief operating officer of Odom Construction Systems, Inc.

Odom said he would never misclassify his workers even though the decision put the company of about 225 employees at a disadvantage as the practice would shave about 30 per cent off his labour costs. He testified in support of legislation.

“It’s a principle for us,” Odom said in an interview. “We weren’t willing to stick our heads in the sand. It’s exploiting those guys and we just don’t want to make money off people who are being exploited.”

Can we find any Odom in Singapore? I doubt it. But one thing is certain: the practice here is getting out of hand, with bosses who care a damn about ethics and morals.

They call it a “contract for service” as opposed to “contract of service” – which is the usual term used in Employment Act agreements handled by the MOM — thus avoiding CPF and all the other perks.  But put them under the microscope, and you will see a minefield of illegalities in clauses in the contract that can spell only one thing: gross injustice to the worker.

There are clauses in many contracts that show stark discrimination against the worker, such as in the Termination section.

Very often, the employer designs the contract to empower him to terminate it without giving any notice (whatever the reason), whereas he makes it mandatory for the worker, if he chooses to terminate (on his own accord), to give two or three months’ notice, even though he might have worked for only a few days. Failure to adhere to this would constitute a breach of contract and render the worker liable to pay compensation.

Will MOM intercede on behalf of the worker if he makes a complaint against his boss? Only if MOM deems that the contract is for an employer-employee relationship, not otherwise. That’s the worker’s only saving grace.

In one recent case, the employer filed a claim for compensation at the Small Claims Tribunal against an employee who merely followed his boss’s request to terminate the contract (after working for only 12 days). He had all the evidence to prove it. He also served a one-day notice, which is the usual Employment Act requirement for any job held for less than 26 weeks.

However, the employer was banking on the contract that the worker signed, which specified a 60-day notice period. So, did the employer have a case? At the hearing, the Referee – after two earlier attempts to settle failed — decided to discontinue the case, as the contract was not in the ambit of the Employment Act.

Hooray for the worker! But wait. This was just one swallow, not the entire summer. It must be seen as an Entrapment into which, by the employer’s own admission, he had successfully ensnared several workers in his stable. In other words, he could still rip off many more.

Last year, one employer withheld $150 from each employee for the whole year before releasing it – just to make sure he or she didn’t quit midstream. Isn’t this an employment violation? Is the MOM aware?  Ain’t there nobody to stop such abuse?

Another case happened not long ago, where the bosses made their  trainers sign a two-year bond. But they never showed any honesty, integrity or professionalism themselves in carrying out their part of the contract. Mind you, these were 20-something newbies in their first job that they were dealing with.

The bosses promised full training in the contract but, in actuality, they  flogged their employers to death by making them work — sometimes without lunch break – and carry out tasks they had no formal training in – probably as a ruse to make school staff believe they were fully competent for the jobs they were doing. Worse, the bosses also fabricated the trainers’ credentials and qualifications in their promotional flyers.

The employees were forced to use their own discretion and ingenuity to carry out their tasks to the best of their ability, which was extra work which they had to do at home.

For instance, when they were not trained to do something, they were ordered to “read up a book and conduct a class”. And when one employee called for a meeting with his immediate boss, to deny those company claims about his “abilities”, he got a sack warning.

Enough was enough. A few tendered their resignation letters – bond or no bond. But the bosses took them to court to claim three months’ salary each, according to the contract! Who was there to fight for the worker’s rights?

When one wrote in, pleading for help and intercession, MOM replied:

“….. the terms pertaining to monetary compensation for terminating the contract prematurely is a contractual term and not governed by the Employment Act. Where there are disputes, the civil court will have jurisdiction in deciding the outcome. Therefore we are not in a position to assist you in the civil claim by your ex-employer
for the three months penalty for terminating the contract before 24 months.
You may wish to consult a lawyer for legal advise” (sic)

A 22-year-old at his first job, being asked to engage a lawyer to challenge the bosses in court? Get real!

Jetstar Refuses Refund Unless Customer Can Prove He Deserves It

0
tim-jetstar

Ok now we’re pissed off. We’ve heard of ridiculous stories about companies refusing to give customers refunds but this is one of the BEST. If you’ve ever had to go through the pain of dealing with airline companies…no, wait…budget airline companies, then you may be able to somewhat identify with this situation. Some people just found out just how ridiculous the demands can get before they can get a refund.
 
One of our employees just had the worst conversation of his life with a customer service officer. Here’s an idea of how the conversation went. It’s a little long but this should give you an idea of how frustrating it was:
Other golden nuggets during the conversation were phrases such as “I just don’t like travelling in the day time. I need to take a flight at night where there is no sunlight.” (obviously a sarcastic response to the ridiculous demands being made). No response from Jetstar yet.
Here’s another customer who (we’re assuming) was on the same flight and had the same thing happen to her:
 
“Hi Miss X, we realise this is very unfortunate and…” blah blah blah.
To paraphrase an often used call for action, NO MONEY NO TALK (perhaps we could coin a new acronym?). You can see that both customers ended up booking a more expensive flight with another airline.

To Set The Record Straight

Before you start thinking we’ve suddenly become the Incredible Hulk and burst into some irrational financial rage, here are some things we need to point out:
Flight Cancellation
We understand that with a smaller fleet, budget airline carriers may be more prone to having to reschedule flights. That is fine. What is not okay is rescheduling the flight, presumably being unable to contact the affected parties (there is really no excuse in this day and age. Send a damn pigeon if you have to), and then expecting people to just automatically being able to make it.
This is perhaps a timely reminder to not just ignore that e-itinerary that the airlines email to you.
Refund and Compensation Policy
This is a tough cookie for budget airlines. We’re sure they have to deal with plenty of demands for refunds, and this is where certain terms and conditions are reasonable to enforce by the book, such as passengers attempting to cancel or reschedule their own flights. We understand the whole “you get what you pay for” thing, but in this instance, we’re required to justify why we can’t or don’t want to take a flight on a work day??!
Think about this situation in another way – what if, just as an example, a devious airline decided to intermittently shift their flights around (in a manner infrequent enough such that it didn’t affect normal business) to some kind of inconvenient timing and then refuse refunds for anyone who couldn’t make it?
The answer is: TIO BEH PIO! (Hokkien for strike lottery)
Also, as you saw above, both passengers ended up booking a different flight on another carrier (for the exact same dates as their original Jetstar booking). In a situation like this, where the inconvenience was essentially forced upon them, shouldn’t the customer have the right to some automatic form of compensation? Even something like the airline offering to cover 50% of the additional cost (within reason) would be a drop in the ocean of goodwill that would go miles further to improve both customer satisfaction and brand loyalty than some stupid “I’m so sorry (but I don’t want to help you financially)” speech.
Customer Service
The entire MoneySmart office was already starting to make a joke out of how long the conversation was going on for, until we realised that our poor Timothy wasn’t the only one who had an extended romantic conversation with multiple customer service officers. If he had to escalate it any further, he may have been able to speak to the Jetstar CEO by the end of the day.
What these companies need to learn – is that while policies and procedures are necessary and important, in certain given situations, flexibility isn’t such a bad thing. It is the onus of the company to train their employees to discern this and if not, to redirect the matter to someone who can make a decision as soon as possible. Simply regurgitating, “Sorry, it’s our company policy…” is a surefire way to lose a customer.

At The End of The Day…

When you’re flying on a budget airline, it’s not that you have an issue bringing extra luggage on to the plane.
You ARE the luggage.
Have you had a similar nightmarish experience dealing with budget airlines? We want to hear them.
Image Credits:
Jetstar Facebook Page
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/kaopeh/jetstar-refuses-refund-unless-customer-can-prove-he-deserves-it/

Malay community made good progress in the last 10 years: K Shanmugam

Minister K Shanmugam said that the Malay community made good progress in the last 10 years at the LBKM Bursary presentation held on the 23rd of November. He further went on to say that the Government will continue to provide support for the Malay community through the various agencies.
Below is his Facebook post.

Stingy or generous?

By Elias Tan

Source - http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/type-help-not-size-monetary-donation-key-relief-effort-shanmugam
Source

Singapore is relatively stingy: America, Europe and Japan together donated US $76 million to the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan while Singapore pledged to give S$50,000. As expected, netizens slammed the government for not doing more to help the victims, it was inevitably forced to increase its donations by six-fold to S$360,000.
In response to a commentary in The Straits Times in 2010 that said Singapore was giving too little to relief efforts after the Haiti earthquake, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the amount or type of humanitarian assistance given by the Singapore Government is not intended to match the scale of a disaster.
But is Singapore really a penny pincher? A look at how much Singapore voluntarily gave Indonesia during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami that ravaged Bandar Aceh and the 2010 Sumatra earthquake tells that Singapore can be generous and helpful. It was a whopping $5 million.
This brings us to the next question: Is Singapore practising favouritism when dishing out aid money? Form a geo-political point of view, Indonesia is important to Singapore. The huge archipelago sits a ferry ride away from Singapore. It is the big brother of Asean and the economic and defence links are important for Singapore.
Besides, Singapore has invested heavily in Indonesia with 142 projects worth US $1.14 billion parked in that country.
While the amount given to the Philippines may be small, the scale of the disaster is much smaller compared to the one which hit Indonesia. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was reported to have recorded more than 130,000 casualties while the figure for Typhoon Haiyan stands at 6,000.
What could have also tilted the balance are reports that the Philippines Government attempted to sell basic items and gave aid to the typhoon victims at discounted prices.
It is time for the government to set out clearly its aid policy. If not, the next aid for the next disaster will revive the old debate of why Singapore does not dig deeper into its pockets.

The missing statistics

By Leong Sze Hian

Source - http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11/not-so-ordinary-ordinary-singaporean-leong-sze-hian/
Source

Last week, the Government trotted out statistics to show that in “in real terms – after adjusting for inflation – workers’ incomes went up more this year. The 3.9 per cent rise was not only higher than last year’s 2.5 per cent, it was the highest increase since the onset of the 2008 global financial crisis”. Here are some hard questions and some hard truths about the statistics.
Part-time workers’ real income growth
The real income growth of part-time workers excluding employer CPF contribution last year was minus 2.6% – with no change in the nominal income of $800. In this connection, the number of part-time workers increased from 196,800 to 205,000 last year. A part-time worker is one who works 35 hours or less in a week.
Real median income growth
There is also no longer a table in the MOM report to show the real median income growth excluding employer CPF contribution for the last 10 years and last five years.
Resident unemployment rate
Why has the non-seasonally adjusted resident unemployment rate increased from 3.7 to 3.9% last year, increasing to 82,600 from 2012′s 79,000 unemployed residents?
The labour market is tight, job growth is high, and yet the unemployment rate has risen
Singaporeans’ unemployment rate
Also, why is there no longer a breakdown of the unemployment rate into residents and Singaporeans? In the past, the Singaporean unemployment rate was typically higher than the resident rate.
Unemployment rate
What I find to be rather strange is that the highest unemployment rate was for Service & Sales Workers at 5.4%. If this is the type of jobs that Singaporeans consistently shun why is the unemployment rate for this sector the highest?
Could it be due to the influx of foreign workers and the depression of wages in this job category? That may be the reason why Singaporeans who lose such jobs have a hard time finding another equivalent similar job with similar pay and working conditions.
In this connection, the basic median salary of shop sales assistants is only $1,074. I also understand that this Service & Sales Workers category has seen the highest number of jobs created in recent years.
Real median income growth for last 11 years
Since I estimate that the real growth in the Median Gross Monthly Income for the Full-Time Employed (not all employed including part-time) per annum from 2002 to 2012 was only about 0.85 per cent – even with last year’s real income growth of 4.5 and 5.7% for all workers and full-time workers respectively, does it mean that the real income growth per annum for the last 11 years was only about 1.2%?
Increase of only $6.18 per year for last 11 years?
To put this pathetic state of affairs into perspective – a low-wage worker at the 20th percentile earning $1,000 11 years ago would only have had a real income increase to hit about $1,068 now – a $6.18 increase per year over the last 11 years!
Leong Sze Hian is the past president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals

The art of demeaning and dividing

0

By Augustine Low
Singapore NewsSingapore netizens have the dubious honour of having a string of labels attached to them – Wild Wild West, lunatic fringe, rumour mongers, purveyors of untruths and half-truths, and most recently, unhappy people. That these labels are dished out by the government shows its undisguised contempt for the online community.
Sociologists will say that labelling is deviant behaviour. It is casting aspersions that are targeted at diminishing, demeaning and demonising others.
For sure, there’s power to be gained through labelling. When you label someone or a group, you are in effect telling them you can see through what they represent. You put yourself at the throne of superiority and assume the position of deciding someone else’s identity.
But why do those who are already in power need to still gain the upper hand by cutting down others to size? It could boil down to protection of turf, to preservation of status quo. It is also a way to dumb down discussion and debate, as in: It is beneath me to engage you because you are not worthy enough.
It cannot be denied that there are overzealous netizens, not just here but anywhere in the world. That’s the new reality. We live in a plural society where people hold opposing views and beliefs, sometimes too vociferously, sometimes agreeing to disagree.
There are those in the online community who are uncivil, but there are also many who are well-meaning and conscience-driven. But to put them all in one basket and equate them to bad apples and troublemakers is clearly unhelpful and unwarranted.
Carl Jung, the celebrated psychological theorist, advocated the value of looking inwards for answers rather than lashing out as a solution: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.”
Labelling, taken to extremes, becomes a form of rejection and even ostracism which can be divisive to society.
There is also this prevailing notion of the vocal minority and the silent majority, often echoed by the government and the mainstream media. So the vocal minority are supposedly anti-Establishment netizens who are up to no good, while the silent majority are pro-Establishment folks who go about quietly minding their own business.
What about those who are vocal on mainstream media? Under the norms, they are certainly not considered vocal minority and they cannot be the silent majority since they are airing their views. Perhaps they are now the happy vocal minority?
It just doesn’t add up. The thing is, there are so many ifs and in-betweens, so many complexities, that we cannot pigeon-hole people into neat categories.
In any case, to be dubbed silent majority isn’t that encouraging either. It suggests these people are inarticulate/inexpressive/couldn’t be bothered/don’t have an opinion/don’t want to get hands wet. Our society would be in dire straits if such people form the majority of the population. What’s more, in the 19th century, the term silent majority was used to refer to the dead – the reason being that the dead outnumber the living and hence form the silent majority.
I know, times change and so do the meaning of words. And that’s precisely it – times change and citizens cannot be expected to remain compliant as before, no questions asked, no voices of disagreement.
For a government to pin labels on its own citizens, and to put them into contrasting categories is to demean and divide, and create an untenable Them vs Us mentality.
Augustine Low is a communications strategist.

Is the Fair Consideration Framework Actually Fair?

0
5815522224_d25d5a144d_n

The Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) was created after the National Conversation. It turns out Singaporeans are disgruntled about losing jobs to foreigners. I don’t know what’s scarier: the threat of growing xenophobia, or the fact that the people in charge had to organise a national level event to figure this out. Either way, here are some things they should have included:
 

“Sorry you’re just here to fill up the interview numbers.”

What is the Fair Consideration Framework

The Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) is meant to prevent discriminatory hiring practices. It’s main targets are employers who, for whatever reason, avoid hiring Singapore citizens.
The FCF has three main effects:

  • A National Jobs Bank to Ensure Singaporeans Get a Fair Shot
  • Raise Scrutiny Against Discriminatory Employers
  • Make it Harder to Qualify for Certain Employment Passes (EPs)

A National Jobs Bank to Ensure Singaporeans Get a Fair Shot
Employers are required to advertise jobs for 14 days, in a National Jobs Bank run by the Workforce Development Authority (WDA). This ensures that employers can’t “stealth hire” by avoiding Singaporean applicants, and going straight for the ones they want.
Companies with less than 25 employees are exempt, as are job postings with a salary of $12,000 or more per month.
Raise Scrutiny Against Discriminatory Employers

Companies with unusually few Singaporeans at the Professionals, Management, and Executive (PME) levels will come under the spotlight. This is to “improve their hiring and career development practices”, in pretty much the same way police interrogations “improve your memory”.
They’ll start checking and double-checking suspect companies, is what I’m saying.
Make it Harder to Qualify for Employment Passes (EPs)
From January 2014, the qualifying income for EPs will be raised from $3,000 to $3,300.
Now all that can be compared to 500 investments bankers chained to the bottom of a lake (i.e. a good start). But upon closer scrutiny, there are some key issues that the FCF seems to ignore. These are:

  • No Protection for Lower-Income Singaporeans
  • It’s Still Easy to Hack the System
  • No Incentive for Skills Handovers

1. No Protection for Lower-Income Singaporeans

To be an EP holder in Singapore, you need to earn at least $3,300 a month. The salary of the average Singaporean degree holder is about $3,500 a month. Let me translate that for you:
The FCF is shielding degree holders (mostly the middle to upper-middle classes) from foreign competition. If you only earn as much as the typical diploma holder (around $2,500 a month), or you’re a blue collar worker, you’re still competing with a huge pool of foreigners.
The Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) reasoning is that:
We have not made this compulsory for firms submitting applications for S passes or Work Permits, because there are other tools, such as levies and dependency ratio ceilings that spur firms to search for suitable Singaporeans before applying for an S pass or Work Permit.
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that foreign worker levies (and related rules) level the playing field for lower income Singaporeans. The fact is, a lot of foreigners can price-war working class Singaporeans to death. With our cost of living, we simply can’t afford to charge as little for our labour.
In the interest of true fairness, the FCF should be expanded to cover Singaporeans at all income levels.

2. It’s Still Easy to Hack the System

It’s not too hard to weasel out of the FCF’s restrictions. If an employer goes through the motions, putting up the ad for 14 days and interviewing a bunch of people, what’s to stop them from concluding with:
Uh, yeah, we looked real hard. No Singaporean in existence can manage this department / code this software / stack this shelf with hair products.”
Other tricks can include interview shenanigans, like having the hirer meet Singaporean applicants in the darkest, filthiest room to convince them they don’t want to work there. I could give you a whole list, but the point is, anyone determined to break the system can probably do so.
Let’s see if MOM will shed greater clarity on enforcement methods. Follow us on Facebook, and we’ll keep you updated.

3. No Incentives for Skills Handover

Fair enough, Singapore may be lacking in certain skills, which we need to import. But what then?
The standard answer is to keep importing foreigners to fill positions we can’t. That sort of defeats the purpose. The goal is to import foreign talent, and then learn from them. But there’s little incentive to do that; it’s easier for companies to keep rotating foreign employees, who come prepackaged with training, than to trust a Singaporean to be mentored by them.
A better way to reduce our dependence on foreign labour is to incentivize skills handovers. We need to take note of companies who gradually transfer key positions from foreigners to locals, and reward them.
Have you encountered practices in your workplace that need addressing? Share them with us here.
Image Credits:
idi0tekue
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/career/is-the-fair-consideration-framework-actually-fair/

The trust deficit

By Robin Low
The Internet business is built on trust. From Amazon to Ebay, many online businesses enable strangers to meet and trust one another for transactions. It took a long time before people embraced the Internet, making it more open and collaborative. Online transaction relies on a lot of trust. Trust that the buyer pays and the seller actually sells the right product and ships what is paid for. There are many checks and balances in place for that.
Trust and reputation are interrelated. Trust is personal. Reputation emanates from collective opinions of a community. Innovative and minority ideas may thus suffer the “tyranny of the majority” (http://www.gnuband.org/files/papers/trust_it_forward_Tyranny_of_the_Majority_or_Echo_Chambers_paolo_massa.pdf) where like-minded people reinforce each others’ views without being open to outside perspectives.
On Twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia, perhaps, most of the webpages on the Internet, having an honour code is very important. You use your real profile so your friends, contacts, classmates and other acquaintances can find you and connect. Real accounts and profiles are important for online businesses to function as well. Today, more websites allow you to login using your Facebook profile and your real profile is important for many of the other services to function well.
However, when people use fake profiles on Facebook, the whole fabric on what the Internet is built on is disrupted. Many people maintain fake profiles just to spread hate and troll online. This behaviour is very unproductive and serves absolutely no purpose – sort of like the spam email you get. Most of the people can see through the veil and ignore the trolls online that are just out to get a reaction and pick fights.
A property which characterises the relationship between trust and reputation is reciprocity. The reciprocity involves an exchange of assessment (favorable or not). Like it or not, it is important that our society does not degenerate into hate-mongering and abuse, however controlling the medium. If the government is intolerant to bloggers critical about their policies, it will only drive people to continue their conversations on other platforms and use fake IDs.
In Singapore, although communication is more democratic today, laws like defamation and contempt against critics are used when the government can simply engage these parties in a debate to find solutions to solve the problems.
Singaporeans are not stupid. They are very capable of finding solutions that work for them. There seems to be an open call for ideas. However, many good ideas are rejected by the government because they come from the opposition. There are many views and opinions online, and just because they are different from the government’s view, it does not necessarily mean they are destructive.
Singaporeans today are better-educated, and can think critically. To say that “satisfied people don’t go to the Internet, unhappy people do” suggests the Prime Minister has given up on engagement. It takes time to build trust and reputation but it is very easy to lose it. As the future unveils more technology to keep more people connected on the Internet, we may see more and more “unhappy people”.

A Trojan Horse for Fare Rise?

0

By Eric Tan
mrt station

The Fare Review Committee has completed its findings and the most tangible take-away is that there is going to be single journey fare increases for buses and trains.

There were good recommendations, such as the introduction of monthly concessions for frequent travellers and low-income travellers. However, the committee did not recommend the amount of discount from the current single fare structure for the price of the monthly concessions. The committee also did not define the meaning of frequent travellers. Those who take at least two trips a day should be defined as frequent travellers. If this is done, we can judge the tangible economic benefits of the recommendations.

Singaporeans do not want a fare rise because the public transport service standards have dropped and cost of living in Singapore has gone up far too much. There is no need for the government to add fire to the cauldron.
Furthermore, when I examined the fare adjustment formula of the past few years, I noticed that it only took into account the operators’ cost increases but not revenue increases resulting from increased passenger traffic. Yes, there is a productivity extraction factor but it is not directly related to increased passenger traffic.

In the past eight years, Singapore had experienced an increase in population of over one and half million people and increased tourist traffic, resulting in overcrowded trains and buses. That’s bad news for commuters but good news for operators as their revenues and yields per trip go up. During this period, revenues went up with the increased ridership but these benefits were not passed down to the commuters in the form of fare reductions. This increase in revenues was not factored in the formula, which is used to review fare increases. They only looked at increases in wages and fuel costs of the operators. In other words, one can argue that if the revenue increased more than the increase in costs then we should not have had any fare increases in the past.

MORAL DILEMMA

This brings us back to the root cause of the current tension between the commuters and the government. The current system poses a moral dilemma and conflict for the management of the operators as they, being leaders of government-owned companies, have to be sensitive to the public distaste for fare increases but their managerial objective is to maximise shareholder’s value. However, the government has always argued that the privatisation of the transport operators is still the better model, as experienced in other countries.

I believe that the privatisation would have worked well if the operators are not government-linked companies. Then the regulators can come down hard on the operators to ensure that their profits are minimised. In our case, the operators and regulators all report to the same ultimate authority, the government. Therein lies the conflict for the regulators as if the government culture is to maximise the profits of their listed companies then the regulators would be inclined to be less stringent on the operators.

Perhaps, the rise in the breakdown of train services in recent years is a reflection of the weakness of the current system. If the operators are purely private owned companies then perhaps the current system may work better as the regulators can come down hard on them.

NATIONALISATION

I propose that we should nationalise public transportation; anyway we are already headed there with government indirectly subsidising the operators through the grants given to them for buying buses. This will allow the government and management of the MRT to focus on clearing away all the maintenance problems and upgrading the systems with the clear objective of establishing our MRT once again as the best in Asia, better than the Hong Kong MTR.

After this, we can consider different privatisation models. I like the idea of dividing up the lines to allow private operators to bid on the lowest cost basis to run the lines. The revenues from fares go to the government which would de couple the conflict which exists in the current system .The government would award the tender to the most competitive bid and pay the operators for running it. The profit margin for the operators is embedded in their tender to operate the lines on a most competitive cost basis. By slicing up the lines, it will allow SMEs to participate in the tender as the size of the operators need not be large.

Singapore’s public transport system faces serious problems and need serious solutions. The committee did not present serious solutions but then that may not have been their terms of reference.

Eric Tan was the treasurer of the Workers’ Party.

The identity crisis of Singaporean Arabs

0

A piece of Yemen in Singapore

Map of Yemen
Map of Yemen

After Iraq and Af-Pak, the focus of international terrorism has shifted to Yemen and Somalia. More so, for Yemen, where the country’s interior ministry has acknowledged a resurgence of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which has seized areas along the southern-coast of the country. Recent reports indicate a plot by an al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia to declare the Ghayl Ba Wazir district of Hadhramaut province an Islamic emirate. These turn of events are of utmost concern to Singaporean Arabs, as most Arabs who settled in South-east Asia, including Singapore, were from Hadhramaut and thus came to be known as Hadhramis. Most of them have close family ties with Yemen even now.

The Hadhramis arrived in Singapore as early as 1819 and became an integral part of the society engaging in trade, shipping, plantation estates and taking pilgrims for Haj. The community also contributed generously in establishing mosques, schools and other charitable organisations in Singapore. With the spread of Islam in South-east Asia, Hadhramis came to be known as the local custodians of the religion by the local Muslim communities.

The National Library Board (NLB) of Singapore had organised a six-month long exhibition in 2010 titled ‘Rihlah – Arabs in South-east Asia’ [Rihlah means journey in Arabic], which detailed the contribution of Hadhramis in post-war Singapore. So much so that Arabic-names such as Aljunied, Alkaff and Alsagoff have become important landmarks in Singapore’s landscape, according to the NLB’s exhibition displays.

But, as noted by Ben Simpfendorfer in his article, Singapore’s Hadhrami Community in Today’s Economy, published in Singapore’s Middle East Institute‘s publication Insights in 2010 “the Hadhrami community’s importance has faded in the last fifty years. There are only an estimated 10,000 Arabs living in Singapore today, the majority of whom are Hadhrami origin, ranking among the country’s smallest communities”.

Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, associate professor at department of Malay studies at the National University of Singapore (NUS), in his 2007 paper The role of Hadhramis in post-second World War Singapore – a reinterpretation, noted, ”Past scholarship has tended to portray the history of Hadhramis in Singapore with that of the political, economic, social and religious prominence of the diasporic community in the pre-Second World War period, followed by declining significance and disenfranchisement.”

This issue of identity crisis of Singaporean Arabs is not new.

It came out in the open in 1992 when the Malay programme “Potret Keluarga” produced by then Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) depicted Arabs as being part of the Malay community. Al-Mahjar, a publication of the Arab Association of Singapore (Alwehdah), in November 1996, published an article The Arab Identity: Dilemma or Non-issue, which noted the resistance of Singaporean Arab community at being labelled as Malays.

Even earlier, in 1995, at a seminar organised by Alwehdah on Singapore Arabs in the 21st Century, Syed Farid Alatas, who is now an associate professor of Sociology at the NUS, had argued that “the relatively less developed status of

the Arab community in South-east Asia, and particularly in Singapore, has something to do with the problem of identity. While it is correct that Arabs in Singapore are part of the Malay community to the extent that they have assimilated aspects of the Malay culture, they still identify themselves as Arabs.”

Dwelling on the reasons for dilution of the extent of differentiation between Hadhramis and Malays, Aljunied in his 2007 Paper gave three main reasons. These were adherence to the shared faith of Islam, adoption of Malay language and ways of everyday living by Hadhramis that eased their assimilation into the Malay community, and a shared predicament of being minority-Muslims within a secular state numerically dominated by the Chinese. “As a result, a majority of Hadhramis in Singapore then classified themselves under the category ‘Malay’ instead of ‘Arab’ or ‘Others’ when the identity card system was introduced in the early 1960s,” he writes.

Going further, historians and scholars have proposed solutions to uplift the Singaporean Arab community and revive a sense of asabiyya [social cohesion] in it. These include teaching Arabic in schools, encouraging Singaporean Arab women to participate in public affairs and building social networks in the Arab world for the benefit of Singapore.

“Singapore might attempt publicizing its historical links to the Middle East more widely. This would largely focus on the Hadhrami community’s legacy, whether it is mosques, restaurants, or historical places. Singapore could also broaden its appeal by talking in more general terms of the city-state’s ‘Arab legacy’. The aim would be to make Middle Eastern visitors feel welcome at a time when they might feel uncomfortable in other parts of the world, especially Europe and US,” writes Simpfendorfer.

This is especially important as the tourism sector in Singapore is set to witness a slowdown in coming years and investment from US and Europe is expected to be low due to the ongoing economic crisis in the West.

 

 Madrasah Alsagoff Al-Arabiah - the oldest surving madrasah in Singapore

Madrasah Alsagoff Al-Arabiah – the oldest surving madrasah in Singapore

Resized - The NHB placard
The National Heritage Board’s (NHB) placard at Madrasah Alsagoff Al-Arabiah



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newzzit