æŽçŽŸ å¾€æ—¥æƒ…

3 Mar 10, 14:13

PAP MPs attack Low Thia Kiang for his call on govt to scrap foreign worker levy

TR

Workers’ MP Low Thia Kiang shed his inhibition and went for the juggernaut during a parliamentary session yesterday with harsh criticisms of the ruling party’s liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies which have brought untold hardships and sufferings among ordinary Singaporeans.

Contrary to what was said by Finance Minister Tharman in his Budget speech earlier that the wages of Singapore workers have grown over the last few years, Mr Low felt that the low-wage earners are left behind:

“When the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) has to be revised upward and the qualifying monthly income limit increased to $1,700 to ensure low-wage earners are not left behind in our foreigner-dependent economy, doesn’t that raise an alarm in the Government about the meagre salary our low-wage workers are getting? ‘The growth strategy… for the past 10 years has definitely not made these Singaporean workers feel any sense of progress with the nation,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times.

He blamed the government for opening the floodgates to foreign workers which provides few incentives for companies to boost their productivity:

“It is easy to blame our local workforce for low productivity but who opened the gates to allow foreign workers to flood the labour market in the first place? Easy access to cheap foreign labour offers little incentive for companies to up their productivity… The Government has to assume some responsibility for the low productivity in the last decade” he said.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal, the relentless influx of foreign workers has depressed the wages of Singapore workers, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standards of living.

Foreigners now made up 36 per cent of Singapore’s population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas.

Mr Low also urged the PAP to take ‘bold step’ to scrap the foreign workers levy completely and use the dependency ratio to manage the growth of foreign workers in Singapore.

“Based on reports that there are about 856,000 work permit holders in Singapore as at December – excluding the 196,000 domestic helpers - a $10 to $30 monthly increase in levy would bring in an additional $79 million to $238 million per year for the Government. And using the low end of the work permit levy, which is $150 a month, the Government is taking in about $1.2 billion a year from this payment,” he added.

Mr Low opined that the hike in foreign worker levy will not affect large companies and “‘this whole exercise could just end up fattening the Government’s coffer with little results to show in controlling the ever-expanding foreign workforce.”

As expected, Mr Low’s comments brought a barrage of criticisms from the PAP MPs who dominate parliament.

Ms Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) claimed that foreign workers will be cheaper without the levies:

“Without the levies, foreign workers are even cheaper and even more attractive to businesses. And some of these businesses will find loopholes to get round the quotas, to get more of the cheaper foreign workers,” she said.

However, she ignored the fact that Mr Low had already suggested refining the dependency ratio to control the inflow of foreign workers.

Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) added that “any move to tighten the dependency ratio as a way to raise workers’ wages could also lead to higher cost of living for consumers.”

She forgot that there is a limit to which companies can raise the prices without losing their clients. At the end of the day, the onus is on them to find ways to boost productivity while keeping prices low at the same time.

It is evident that the PAP’s growth strategy for the past few years has disastrous consequences for the low income earners in Singapore whose wages had remained stagnant. In fact, Singapore now has the largest income gap between the rich and the poor among the thirty most developed economies after Hong Kong.

With no opposition in parliament to check on the PAP, Singaporeans will have little choice but to be led by them through the noses like a flock of “sheep”.

æŽçŽŸ å¾€æ—¥æƒ…

3 Mar 10, 17:57

PAP MP Ong Ah Heng admits sacking Singaporean elderly workers and replacing them with foreigners in his constituency

March 3, 2010

TR

As MPs are supposed to raise the concerns of Singaporeans in Parliament, one would expect them to speak out against the ruling party’s pro-foreigner and liberal labor policies which saw foreigners competing with Singaporeans for limited jobs in the market.

Instead, the PAP MPs put up a “wayang” in parliament yesterday by jumping to the defence of foreign workers led ironically by one of the oldest MPs among them – 66 year old Ong Ah Heng from Yishun Central.

Not only did Mr Ong gave an “impassioned speech in defence of foreign workers who make significant contributions”, he admitted quite frankly that he had previously sacked Singaporean cleaners and replaced them with foreigners in his own constituency:

“I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don’t want local workers who are old, they want young foreign workers. To satisfy the demand, I changed the local workers to foreign workers. Foreign workers are not a burden to us. Their presence here is not negative. Without foreign workers, things will be worse,” he said.

Did Mr Ong sack the Singapore elderly workers just because of a single complaint from one family? Did he make any provisions to help the sacked workers obtain another new job?

Jobs should be reserved for Singaporeans as far as possible, especially the elderly who still have to work to support themselves.

Mr Ong’s blunt remarks speak volumes of the efforts of the government to get companies to hire elderly workers. How can it expect companies to follow suit when its own MP prefers foreign workers over Singaporeans?

Yishun Central residents should consider changing Mr Ong for a younger MP in the next election. After all, he is not too young himself.

charlize

3 Mar 10, 18:06

Originally posted by æ�ŽçŽŸ å¾€æ—¥æƒ…:

PAP MP Ong Ah Heng admits sacking Singaporean elderly workers and replacing them with foreigners in his constituency

PAP MP Ong Ah Heng admits sacking Singaporean elderly workers and replacing them with foreigners in his constituency

March 3, 2010

TR

As MPs are supposed to raise the concerns of Singaporeans in Parliament, one would expect them to speak out against the ruling party’s pro-foreigner and liberal labor policies which saw foreigners competing with Singaporeans for limited jobs in the market.

Instead, the PAP MPs put up a “wayang” in parliament yesterday by jumping to the defence of foreign workers led ironically by one of the oldest MPs among them – 66 year old Ong Ah Heng from Yishun Central.

Not only did Mr Ong gave an “impassioned speech in defence of foreign workers who make significant contributions”, he admitted quite frankly that he had previously sacked Singaporean cleaners and replaced them with foreigners in his own constituency:

“I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don’t want local workers who are old, they want young foreign workers. To satisfy the demand, I changed the local workers to foreign workers. Foreign workers are not a burden to us. Their presence here is not negative. Without foreign workers, things will be worse,” he said.

Did Mr Ong sack the Singapore elderly workers just because of a single complaint from one family? Did he make any provisions to help the sacked workers obtain another new job?

Jobs should be reserved for Singaporeans as far as possible, especially the elderly who still have to work to support themselves.

Mr Ong’s blunt remarks speak volumes of the efforts of the government to get companies to hire elderly workers. How can it expect companies to follow suit when its own MP prefers foreign workers over Singaporeans?

Yishun Central residents should consider changing Mr Ong for a younger MP in the next election. After all, he is not too young himself.

Haiz.

MPs not working for Singaporeans anymore.

Vote them in for what?

TehJarVu

3 Mar 10, 18:09

Originally posted by charlize:

Haiz.

MPs not working for Singaporeans anymore.

Vote them in for what?

hanor hanor

maybe we should fire them so they won't fire us

æŽçŽŸ å¾€æ—¥æƒ…

4 Mar 10, 05:28

Give adequate wages to low income workers

Tan Kin Lian

For many years, the Government has advocated a pro-business environment in Singapore. This is aimed at attracting foreign investors to set up businesses here and create more jobs for Singaporeans.

This strategy has been successful. Singapore has received many international awards for being a competitive economy and a world class workforce.

A hard working, well educated, productive and co-operative workforce is an important contributor to this pro-business environment. This strategy has also benefited many Singaporeans. They have the opportunity to get good jobs at high wages. Many multi-national companies set up their operations in Singapore to serve the Asian region. The demand for talent and for professions in accounting, legal, marketing, business development and other services have contributed to this happy situation.

To cope with the shortage of talent, Singapore has an open door policy to attract professionals and foreign talents to work in Singapore.

Depressed Wages

The open door cannot be restricted only for the talents that are scarce in Singapore. In any case, this type of people has not been defined clearly.

In practice, the open door policy has also been applied to other sectors of the labour force. The demand for workers willing to work for competitive wages extends down the skill ladder.

Although there are controls to ensure a balance of local and foreign workers, they have been difficult to apply in practice. As a consequence, we have an abundance of low wage workers in Singapore. The actual number has not been published. If we look at the people who do not speak like Singaporeans working in the heartlands and in the factories, one can conclude that there must be a large number.

One unfortunate consequence of this influx of foreign workers is the large number of local “mature” workers above 40 years who are unemployed.

Choosy Workers

A common explanation for the large number of unemployed workers is that they are “choosy”. They are not willing to do certain types of outdoor work, especially if they are risky or dirty.

I suspect that it is a question of adequate wages. If the jobs now shunned by Singaporeans pay adequate wages, I believe that many Singaporeans will be willing to do the work.

I have spoken to many taxi drivers who are willing to work 12 hours a day just to earn $2,000 to feed a family.

There are many older Singaporeans who earn less than $800 a month as cleaners or security guards. They have no choice. They have to work or face starvation. Singapore does not provide any welfare.

I do not consider Singaporeans to be “choosy”.

Foreign workers

Employers will prefer to bring in foreign workers, as they are willing to accept any job and work for a low wage, so long as they earn enough to feed a family in their home country, where the cost of living is much lower than Singapore’s. They are usually provided with accommodation near their place of work and can save on the high accommodation and commuting cost.

In contrast, a Singaporean has to earn enough to feed a family in Singapore, with its high cost and standard of living. He has a family and social life in Singapore, he cannot live in a dormitory near his place of work. He has to incur high accommodation and travel costs.

Outsourcing

For many years, the public sector has been a source of employment for many lower educated workers in our society. They work as cleaners and provide a wide range of services in our hospitals, airports and other public services.

They earn a low wage, but it is adequate to feed a family. They are represented by the public sector’s trade unions, which look after their interests.

In recent years, many of these jobs have been outsourced to the private sector. Instead of employing the direct workers, the government agencies have reorganised the work and retrenched the direct workers. They outsource the work to private contractors, to reduce their cost of operation.

A contractor has to submit a low price to win the tender on a contract. The contractors re-employ the retrenched workers at lower wages, to do the same work that they did previously as direct workers. If the local workers are “choosy”, the contractor can find foreign workers willing to work for less.

The contract is for a term of two or three years. On the renewal of the contract, the contract price is likely to reduce further, due to competition. This means even lower wages for the local contract workers.

Adequate salaries

I believe that local workers deserve to have an adequate salary for a hard day’s work. This salary has to be commensurate with the cost of living. It should be adequate for a worker to feed a family, at least in a frugal way. The worker should not be expected to work for 12 hours a day, and still not earn enough for the family.

In some countries, this is achieved through a “minimum wage”. Even America, which is the strongest proponent of a free market economy and a flexible labour force, finds it necessary to have a minimum wage.

Business has to be competitive

It has been argued that competitive wages and a flexible labour market are necessary for business to remain competitive and to stay in Singapore. This argument has been pushed too hard by our leaders. Many Singaporeans accept this argument quite blindly.

Does it really help the country much for the public sector to save a few million dollars a year, by depressing the earnings of the contract workers who were previously the direct workers of the agencies?

If businesses have to pay a more adequate wage to the low income workers, will the businesses become non-viable? I do not think so.

These businesses can reduce the exorbitant earnings of their top directors and managers, or spend less on lavish offices or other business expenses. These businesses may earn less for shareholders, but will probably still find it quite attractive to remain in Singapore.

Pride to be a Singaporean

I believe that more people will be proud to be Singaporean, if they find that the nation looks after their interests and is willing to give them a fair standard of living for a hard day’s work. I hope that the wages of the lower income workers can be increased. This is even more pressing in 2008, due to the high inflation rate.

æŽçŽŸ å¾€æ—¥æƒ…

4 Mar 10, 05:42

Low Thia Khiang: Low productivity not workers’ fault

Tags: low thia khiang, Parliament, productivity, Singapore

By Gerald Giam

Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang has slammed the PAP government for seemingly suggesting that Singaporean workers have only themselves to blame for their low incomes, because of their low productivity and skills. He said it was easy to blame our local workforce for low productivity when it was the Government which opened the floodgates to foreign workers.

Low was speaking Parliament on Tuesday in response to the Finance Minister’s Budget 2010 speech last week.

The Opposition leader pointed out that manual workers like cleaners and garbage collectors in developed economies are paid so much more than their counterparts in Singapore, attributing this to those countries’ more compassionate and effective policies to ensure that workers at the bottom of the economic ladder enjoy a decent and dignified life. Referring to the Government’s latest productivity drive, which is to grow productivity by 2 to 3 per cent each year over the next decade, Low wondered if low wage workers had to wait another 10 years for the wage increases which they had not seen in the last 10 years.

Low lamented that Singaporean workers are constantly told by the Government to “up-skill, re-skill, multi-skill, be cheaper, better, and faster”. He accused the Government of “squeezing every drop of effort and energy from our workers to achieve its desired GDP numbers”. He felt that the ‘growth at all costs’ strategy initiated since the late nineties resulted in the present state of our economy where low wage earners are growing dependent on state-funded handouts to subsist. He charged that for Budget 2010, the Government is using their same conventional wisdom to address the fundamental problems caused its policies of the last decade.

Abolish the foreign worker levy

Low called the Government to take a bold step to remove the foreign workers levy completely, and instead use the Dependency Ratio to control the growth of foreign workers in Singapore. (The Dependency Ratio sets how many foreign workers a company is allowed to hire for each Singaporean worker. The current ratio ranges from 1 Singaporean for every 7 foreign workers in the construction sector, to 1 is to 5 in the marine sector.) He reasoned that employers will save on the foreign worker levy they currently pay, and this could be used to benefit their local workers, including providing more training for them to improve their skills to become more productive.

Low also questioned whether the proposal to increase foreign worker levies was a revenue-enhancing exercise. He calculated that the Government collects about $1.6 billion in foreign worker levies each year.

Continuing education for older workers

In order to provide more adult continuing education programmes to cater to the needs of older Singaporeans, Low suggested starting a community college for citizens of all ages, especially older Singaporeans. He said the college should have no or minimum entry requirements, offering courses that are totally modular. This would allow senior citizens to earn credits towards a degree or simply for self-enrichment purposes.

The PAP’s response

Responding to Low, PAP MP Josephine Teo criticised his suggestion to remove the foreign worker levy. She said: “To try and introduce an alternative system to a pricing mechanism is a very dangerous suggestion to make. It opens up a whole pandora box (sic) of the difficulties we have to overcome.”

Teo was dutifully following the PAP’s modus operandi of labelling any bold idea suggested by an Opposition MP as “dangerous”. She said that without the levy, foreign workers will be cheaper and more attractive to businesses, and some will find loopholes to get round the quotas, to get cheaper workers, “affecting jobs for Singaporeans”.

She did not explain what loopholes businesses would find to get around a higher dependency ratio, in a country which is renown for very strict enforcement of laws. She also seemed oblivious to the fact that it was the PAP government which opened Pandora’s box of troubles by allowing in so many unskilled foreign labourers over the past decade, and in the process depressing Singaporean workers’ wages and our nation’s productivity.

In a flash of presumptuousness, Teo declared: “I can speak on behalf of the union leaders that we totally and firmly reject Mr Low’s disastrous suggestion that we remove the foreign worker levy as it will harm our workers’ interest.”

ahtansh

9 Mar 10, 10:54

STOMPer Sandra was appalled when the manager of an Old Town White Coffee outlet decided to charge her $1 for adding extra sambal chilli to her nasi lemak. She wonders if chilli really costs so much these days.

The STOMPer said:

"I had dinner at Old Town White Coffee's newly opened outlet at Far East Plaza.

"I ordered nasi lemak and thought that I had been given quite little sambal chilli, so I requested for more.

"After a while, the manager told me that if I wanted more sambal chilli, there would be a charge of $1!

"Is chilli really that expensive nowadays that they need to charge a dollar for more chilli?

"I think its kind of atrocious.

"I will never patronise them anymore because in my opinion, they're earning money in a way that is a little unacceptable."

Foreign workers need to be paid.

yy ww

9 Mar 10, 17:15

Local company seeks Filipinos ONLY for customer service assistant positions

March 7, 2010

During his speech on the Budget, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam repeated the circular argument mentioned earlier by other PAP ministers like PM Lee Hsien Loong that foreign workers are needed in sectors shunned by Singaporeans:

“If we had not brought them in, we would not have been able to ease the supply bottlenecks in the private property markets, build HDB flats, or expand our MRT network,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times.

If this is really so, then why are foreigners being preferred over locals in jobs which can otherwise be taken up by them as shown by the job ad below posted on a Singapore job portal:

Customer Service Assistant is an office job which Singaporeans will not shun.

The pay and working hours offered by the above company at Ubi are quite reasonable and it should have not difficulties getting Singapore workers, however it is clearly indicated that ONLY Filipino need apply.

Do Filipinos possess certain special skills which Singaporeans lack? What does the company need a Filipino specifically to as customer service assistants?

The mainstream media kept portraying Singapore workers as being choosy about jobs such that employers have no choice but to turn to foreign workers, but the reality is that Singaporeans are being shut out of many jobs they will have no qualms doing.

Singapore’s labor policies are incredibly lax and allow companies to employ as many foreign workers as possible so long the dependency ratio of local to foreign workers is met.

However, as “local” consists of both citizens and PRs, the rule can be easily circumvented by getting earlier arrivals to apply for Singapore PR.

Obtaining Singapore PR is also amazingly easy and lax by any standards as there is no minimum period of residency needed. For example, the Professionals/Technical Personnel & Skilled Worker scheme (or simply PTS scheme) is the easiest and most assured route to Singapore PR. It’s estimated that more than 90% of the people obtain their Singapore Permanent Residence through this scheme, many of which are approved in less than a year.

The key requirement under this scheme is that a foreign worker must be working in Singapore for at least six months on either an Employment Pass, Entrepreneur Pass, or S Pass.

[Source: Guide me Singapore]

The company above is likely to help its Filipino Customer Service Assistant apply for a PR which will free up another slot for a foreign worker. Therefore it is thereotically possible for companies to have 100% foreigners and 0% Singaporeans on its payroll!

It is quite obvious from the recent “parliamentary debates” on the Budget that the PAP is either still clueless on what is happening on the ground or is acting blur to cover up its atrocious mistakes.

Had the above advertisement been posted elsewhere, it would have sparked a massive public outcry with the government being forced to take action against the errant company.

Singapore employers have the audacity to discriminate against Singaporeans precisely because they know they have the tacit support of the pro-foreigner PAP government.

Unless Singaporeans send a strong message to the PAP in the next election, they will always be powerless second class citizens in their own country.

Temasek review

charlize

9 Mar 10, 17:16

Seems like now for every 10 jobs created, 9 will go to foreigners and 1 to Singaporeans.

And mainly low waged service jobs.

Times are bad.

yy ww

9 Mar 10, 17:20

cheaper faster better more productive

more obedience - yes sir yes madam yes boss yes lady boss

at the back/ st in the brain - fuck you you ********************

yy ww

9 Mar 10, 19:40

How can Singaporeans make themselves more “marketable” when they are competing with foreigners on unequal terms

March 8, 2010

During a discussion about Budget 2010 on YPAP Facebook, a 28 year old Singapore man who have served two and a half years of National Service lamented that he had been taking on contract jobs for the last few years because all the permanent jobs are going to foreigners.

It brought a sharp rebuke from a probable Indian new citizen/PR Mr Sinha Shekar who replied that “there is nothing called permanent jobs” and called on Singaporeans to make themselves more “marketable and move ahead”.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong in Mr Sinha Shekar’s statement except that no matter how Singaporeans try to make themselves more “marketable”, they will always be on the losing end so long the ruling party’s pro-foreigner policy remains unchanged.

Singaporeans have been exhorted repeatedly by PAP leaders to make themselves “cheaper, better and faster” and to go for re-training to upgrade their skills.

While continued education, training and upgrading should make one more marketable theoretically, the outcome is less than desirable in reality as evident by recent figures released by the Manpower Ministry which shows that only 6 per cent of the workers receive a pay rise after attending training courses conducted by SPUR.

At the end of the day, employers still do not see the value to pay more for highly trained and qualified Singapore workers when they can easily hire an unskilled foreign worker, thanks to the ultra-liberal labor policies in Singapore.

Despite some cosmetic changes introduced lately to placate angry Singaporeans such as raising the levy for foreign workers, it will have minimal impact on the ground as the cornerstone of the ruling party’s policies remain essentially the same.

During a parliamentary session last year, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong dismissed calls from MPs to tweak the manpower policies to put locals first:

“Singapore has to remain an attractive place for businesses, so as to retain those which are here and attract new investments which will bring in more and better jobs for Singaporeans. We cannot get rid of all other competitors just because they run faster than us and make it into a locals-only game,” he said.

[Source: TODAY, 14 February 2010]

His message still applies today. Because Singapore is an export-oriented economy heavily dependent on foreign direct investments, it has to make itself attractive to businesses by keeping labor costs low and in order to do so, Singapore must remain open to foreign workers.

Unlike other countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea which have imposed strict curbs on the influx of foreign migrant workers, Singapore welcomes them with open arms and even expect its own citizens to compete with them directly.

It will be political suicide for any governments in a functioning democracy to implement laws which disadvantage the local workers, but not so in Singapore where the ruling party holds an absolute majority in parliament and there is no opposition to check on it.

The S-pass scheme was introduced in 2004 to recruit foreign workers at the diploma level who command a basic salary of $1,800 and above.

These group of semi-skilled foreigners are taking up jobs which can otherwise be filled by Singaporeans. Contrary to what is reported in the mainstream media, Singaporeans are not shunning them – the terms offered are simply not attractive enough.

Without the easy availability of foreign workers, employers will have no choice but to pay more to hire locals and to invest in innovation to boost productivity, but in an open and unregulated labor market like Singapore’s, foreigners will forever enjoy an unfair advantage over locals:

1. Foreign workers cost much less than Singaporeans and they can well afford to be as they live alone and do not need to support their families here in Singapore.

2. For the same reason, they are willing to work for long hours including the weekends as their loved ones are not here to spend time with time.

3. Unlike Singapore males, they do not have to be away for up to 4 weeks a year to fulfil their reservist obligations.

A Singaporean worker may have undergone countless of courses to upgrade his skills, but if he is going to cost more than a foreign worker, a prospective employer will still opt for the latter eventually.

The onus is on the government to revamp its unfair and discriminatory labor policies against Singaporeans completely to level the playing field so that Singaporeans are able to compete fairly with the foreigners.

In Australia, a new rule was introduced lately to curb the intake of skilled migrant workers. Companies will have to pay a hefty levy amounting to the difference between the salaries of native Australians and foreigners to the government to ensure that locals are not disadvantaged.

Furthermore, the hiring of foreigners is restricted to only selected industries where there is a real shortage of local workers. Australians always have priority in jobs unlike in Singapore where its citizens have to put up with lower wages because the ruling party has opened the floodgates to foreigners.

While Singaporeans should make themselves more marketable constantly, they must be allowed to compete with others on equal terms and not on bended knees.

The government should consider implement the following measures to level the playing field and to make Singapore workers more marketable:

1. Phase out S-passes gradually so that foreign PMETs do not compete with Singaporeans for jobs which can otherwise be taken up by them.

2. Increase the levy for foreign workers to match the difference in wages between them and Singaporeans to neuter their unfair advantage in labor costs.

3. A grant for each NSmen hired by companies to increase their employability.

4. Remove PRs from the “resident” workforce, dependency ratio and all statistics used by the Manpower Ministry to prevent companies from exploiting loopholes in the regulations.

5. Impose a minimum wage for Singapore workers with the difference topped up by grants from the government.

The right to livelihood is a basic human right all Singapore citizens are entitled to and right now they are being denied it by the misguided policies of their own government.

Temasek Review

caleb_chiang

9 Mar 10, 20:21

Originally posted by FireIce:

it's natural of every businessman to think of cutting overheads and making more profits

talk abt wat?

Well, that's the main point. With no proper gahmen in place to take care of the real citizens who are born here, we would be the ones losing our rice bowls over the cheaper labour. Being paid world class salary, they forgot the rest of the nation are actually suffering.

Being leaders, they should be able to see that happening and not enjoying themselves and ask us do not expect too much when looking for jobs while encouraging coys to give pay cut without thinking.

Even if they lead by example, what does it really matter to take a 30% wage cut off a salary of like 100,000? You still can survive richly in this country. For most of the people in the country, a 30% wages cut and a compulsory deduction of CPF, an average 1600 salary would means the person only take back about 900 a month.

That is why most sg'rean are living each day from hand to mouth and many do not have much savings that they can think about the future.

yy ww

9 Mar 10, 20:32

PAP MP Ong Ah Heng slammed by angry netizens for callous remarks on Singapore elderly workers being lazy

March 5, 2010

Previously little known PAP MP Ong Ah Heng became a “celebrity” almost overnight with his most outrageous remarks about Singaorean elderly workers being “lazy and too old.”

During speech made in Parliament this week to defend foreign workers, Mr Ong admitted that he had sacked Singapore elderly workers and replaced them with foreigners:

“I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don’t want local workers who are old, they want young foreign workers. To satisfy the demand, I changed the local workers to foreign workers. Foreign workers are not a burden to us. Their presence here is not negative. Without foreign workers, things will be worse,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times.

Our article on it has drawn more than 3,000 views and 100 comments in less than a day with the majority of respondents lampooning the 66 year old MP for his insensitive remarks and calling him to be “replaced” as well.

Z3roin wrote:

“Mr Ong is old himself too, maybe he shld be replace too. What is the goal of being a MP? To help the needy people in the area under him/her, hearing the voices of the people…Did he in the first place ask and know more about what happens at that situations? One complain and get replaced…One without a kind heart, is not worth the respect as a fellow human beings.”

Senior citizen concurred:

“Did they not tell the elderly to work until their last breadth? Why was that elderly worker slow or lazy? Was she suffering from some ailment? If the worker is slow or lazy, the problem lies with the management – what did the management do to motivate her? Pay her peanuts and expect her to work? Have you ever watched foreigner road sweepers? Have you seen that the ends of their brooms do not even touch the ground, let alone the garbage? Was the resident who complained a foreigner so that they could get their friends over? Ong Ah Heng – you ought to be replaced too. You are too old. What a sad day for Singaporeans! To have MPs like him… sigh…”

Sigh felt sorry for Singapore elderly workers who still have to work well into their twilight years:

“These senior citizens should be enjoying their golden years …. why are they working so hard to make ends meet? Can they withdraw all their CPF money which is supposed to be their retirement fund? Complain about their laziness and lack of skills and replace them with foreigners, pleaseee …. what a lame statement. I am really sad that MP Ong has bend so low to raise this incident to justify the foreign workers policy. The billions we lost through TH and GIC would have been enough for a social welfare prog for these seniors who have been part of the nation building workforce. Very sad …. is there no conscious in the policy makers now?”

Disappointed opined that the PAP government has let the people down:

“In LHL’s PAP 50th anniversary rally, he said the following : In order to win elections the party must maintain the support of majority of Singaporeans, we are not representing just one group – the young people, the old people, women or a particular race – we’re representing all groups young middle aged the elderly – they are all our supporters.

Actions speak louder than words. How does the PAP take care of the people ? I am not expecting too much. Nevermind about the influx of lower cost foreigners replacing the younger Singaporeans. But for the elderly ? Their MP takes care of the elderly cleaners by expecting them to be on their toes and work like younger people? If they can’t be as productive, sack them ? Even if they are lazy or not productive, at least they are willing to work instead of relying on the government for handout. Also I don’t think these elderly cleaners are the highest paid cleaners in the world. Why not be more forgiving to these old folks and let them live their remaining years graciously instead of feeling that the society they are in is cold and heartless?”

Singaporeans should not be too harsh on Mr Ong Ah Heng. He is only reciting the PAP’s mantra: “You die your business!”

TR

yy ww

9 Mar 10, 20:36