Search the Community

Not sure if anyone has seen this http://news.omy.sg/News/Local+News/Story/O...523-247913.html ‎"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals, hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity." - Dr Lim Wee Kiat, PAP MP for Nee Soon GRC. And I thought I had some dignity 😛

http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/04/12/employers-agents-charged-for-falsely-declaring-41-fts-salaries/ 7-11 stores charged for falsely declaring 41 FTs’ salaries April 12th, 2014 | Author: Editorial MOM currently investigating other similar false declaration cases involving 256 foreigners hired by 93 employers The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) issued a statement yesterday (11 Apr) saying that it has charged 8 employers and 2 employment agents for falsely declaring the salaries of foreign employees to the Controller of Work Passes. The 8 employers are franchisees of local convenience chain store 7-Eleven. Of the 2 employment agents charged, one is a 28-year-old Singaporean director of Ethics Career Solution, and the other is a 32-year-old Indian national working in the same company. The 10 allegedly made false declarations between 11 November 2010 and 11 September 2013 in connection with applications for 41 foreign employees: 35 EP holders 6 S Pass holders One of the criteria for MOM granting an EP or S Pass is that the foreign applicant must meet the minimum salary requirement. Investigations revealed that the 8 employers declared in the application for work passes that they would pay the 41 foreigners salaries ranging from $2,400 to $4,550. However, the employers allegedly intended to pay the foreigners much less than the salaries declared. The employers had thus committed an offence under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) of furnishing false information to MOM. MOM’s investigations showed that the 2 employment agents of Ethics Career Solution, which facilitated the placement of 21 of the 41 foreign employees, submitted false salary information in the work pass application forms. They are also charged with furnishing false information. Of the 8 employers, 7 have pleaded guilty to the charges. They were fined between $8,000 or in default 4 weeks’ jail, and $56,000 or in default 42 weeks’ jail. The remaining employer has his case adjourned to 8 May 2014. One of the employment agents was fined $22,000 or in default 8 weeks’ jail while the other was fined $40,000 or in default 15 weeks’ jail. In February 2014, MOM took action against the 41 foreign employees involved in the false salary declaration scam. Some of them had their much lower salaries paid in cash, while some returned cash amounts ranging between $600 and $3,350 per month to their employers, after having their stated salary credited into their bank account. All were charged in court in February 2014. Of the 41 accused, 37 were fined between $5,000 and $7,000 or in default 5 weeks’ and 7 weeks’ imprisonment respectively, while 4 cases are still being heard. Those found guilty will be permanently banned from working in Singapore. The following is a sample of employers and foreigners involved in the false salary declaration scam: MOM said prosecution of the parties involved in the above cases is part of MOM’s continual enforcement efforts against circumvention of the work pass framework. MOM is currently investigating other similar false declaration cases involving 256 foreigners hired by 93 employers. MOM has stepped up on enforcement in this area following the raising of maximum penalties for false declaration under EFMA in November 2012. Offenders will be severely dealt with – if convicted, they can be fined up to $20,000, and/or jailed up to 2 years. Members of the public who know of persons or employers who contravene EFMA should phone MOM at (65) 6438 5122 or email [email protected]. All information will be kept strictly confidential.

The PAP and SMRT management has become complacent with fat bonuses and salaries, ZERO and NO accountability for failures. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/train-faults-on-n...y-stations.html Trains came to a sudden halt and the electricity went out, leaving passengers stranded with no lights or air-conditioning on Thursday evening. Some passengers resorted to breaking a train window to get air into the cabin; at least one woman was said to have fainted. Riders who were evacuated walked through the underground tunnel to the next MRT train station. These were some of the scenes reported by those among thousands of commuters hit by a massive outage along SMRT

Pls share your views. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/7533 Comments: Mellanie Hewlitt Sg_Review 16 Sep 2011 Below is a self-explanatory letter that was sent to the Straits Times and copied to Mr Gerald Ee (who heads the committee to review Ministerial Salaries), which was never published; This message was forwarded to you by WeeSoon@... Date: 15 Sep 2011 From Goh Wee Soon To: sphcorp@... To: Gerard Ee Re: PAP Ministers Salaries a National Embarassment Dear Sir, I recall some time in May 2011 that a committee was purportedly set-up to review and address the very lucrative salaries paid to our ministers. This has been a long overdue exercise and brings back to me a discussion that I had with some of my younger staff during the financial crisis in 2008. You may recall that the 2008 financial crisis hit many private companies and banks very hard. Many of us were forced to either down-size our departments or effect pay-reductions to contain operational costs. My bank (a state aided European bank) was no exception and as a department head I had the burden of either letting go redundant staff and informing existing staff that there would be delays in bonus pay-outs and temporary pay-reductions during this period. As was expected the news was not well received especially amongst staff who were laid-off. However what was totally unexpected was the reaction of the remaining staff who were spared from the retrenchment exercise. Not only were they not grateful, several even asked why they should take a pay-cut. And it was even more glaring that such objections came, not from the older married staff members with children to support and heavy financial responsibilities, but from the younger, single and more impressionable employees. I tried in vain to explain that this was a temporary situation and that we should all be grateful of having a job in these difficult times and that money was not all that important as we should derive satisfaction from the value we add to the team. The response from 2 young twenty-something year olds was loud and immediate: "Who says money is not important. This is Singapore, look at our leaders and Ministers, they are paid million dollar salaries. Our leaders themselves are doing this for the money. They definitely don't work just for the love of the country. Who are you to tell us otherwise?" I was left speechless for a moment to counter this argument as there was truth in these words. But after a moment's reflection I replied; "Yes this is Singapore and yes we have million dollar salaried ministers. But ask yourselves these questions. Do you respect them? Can you expect to turn to them in tough times like these? Do you want to be like them at all?" They were strangely silent as I think they did not expect such a politically in-correct reply from me. I pressed on: "Do you know what will happen to Singapore as a country if all the citizens here adopt the same attitude as our million dollar ministers? We will cease to exist as a financially viable business center tomorrow!" I have copied Mr Gerard Ee in this email in the hope that he can take the above incident into account in his assessment of ministerial salaries. This is sending the wrong message to our citizens, especially the younger generation as they will adopt a mercenary attitude towards all things in existence and we simply inculcate such shallow and material values. I have never been so ashamed of our leaders before. And I share this with you and with SPH knowing full well that this letter and its contents will never be published. But I do hope that you give some thought to this in your review process. Goh Wee Soon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments: Mellanie Hewlitt It has been some months since we received any news from the PAP's bogus committee that was setup in May 2011 as a front to "review" obscene ministerial salaries. The silence from Gerard Ee's committe is defening, and perhaps one difficulty poor Gerard may have is a yardstick for measuring a reasonable benchmark for ministerial salaries. In fact there are plenty of accurate yardsticks for the benchmarks available from salary scales of ministers and leaders in civilised democracies. But poor Gerard is, for some unaccountable reason, unable to use these measures. Of cause it does not help that the only other countries with "leaders" with similiar remuneration scale all just happen to be dictatorships from countries riddled with graft and nepotism. There is however some respite for poor Gerard and his bogus running dog committee as a local benchmark has been offered from Tan See Jay. Now it will be interesting to see how Mr Ee and Singapore's propaganda media attempt to side step this embarassing situtation and continue to remain willfully blind to the increasingly large white elephant squatting in the middle of their small living room.

LOL i sent the thread to Sg Review and they posted it.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/7474 Sg_Review Comments: Mellanie Hewlitt It has been some months since we received any news from the PAP's bogus committee that was setup in May 2011 as a front to "review" obscene ministerial salaries. The silence from Gerard Ee's committee is defening, and perhaps one difficulty poor Gerard may have is a yardstick for measuring a reasonable benchmark for ministerial salaries. In fact there are plenty of accurate yardsticks for the benchmarks available from salary scales of ministers and leaders in civilised democracies. But poor Gerard is, for some unaccountable reason, unable to use these measures. Of cause it does not help that the only other countries with "leaders" with similiar remuneration scale all just happen to be dictatorships from countries riddled with graft and nepotism. There is however some respite for poor Gerard and his bogus running dog committee as a local benchmark has been offered from Tan See Jay. Now it will be interesting to see how Mr Ee and Singapore's propaganda media attempt to side step this embarassing situtation and continue to remain willfully blind to the increasingly large white elephant squatting in the middle of their small living room. http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2667953 NightWind Yesterday, 09:41 AM Post #1 Compare this to the greed of the PAP Pig ministers on Animal Farm...good to see TJS making this point. I wonder what ever happened to that bogus committee that was set-up to review Ministerial Salaries.....they should use S$500k as the benchmark... http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC11...s-enough-for-me Tan Jee Say: S$500,000 is enough for me by Carolyn Quek carolynquek@... 04:46 AM Aug 21, 2011SINGAPORE - After laying out several pledges in his Presidential candidate broadcast speech, Mr Tan Jee Say said he would take a salary of S$500,000 if elected. The 57-year-old's campaign flyer states, among other things: "Presidential salary: $500,000 a year is plenty for anyone to live on. Anything else should go back to the people of Singapore." Asked by reporters how he had arrived at the figure, Mr Tan replied that the sum "is far above" what an average family needs. On whether it was meant to counter Mr Tan Kin Lian's campaign promise to take half of the president's salary, which is currently about S$4 million, Mr Tan Jee Say replied: "No it's not undercutting. People do ask me what is good to live on so I think this is a figure. It's a lot of money." Any amount he receives above S$500,000, if he is elected as President, would go to charity, Mr Tan Jee Say added. He was speaking to reporters during a walkabout at Geylang Serai yesterday evening. Earlier, he visted the Green Avenue Home for the Elderly and High Point Community Services at Lorong 23 Geylang. Calling ageing issues a "rising problem" for Singapore, Mr Tan Jee Say felt that issues such as raising the income ceiling for healthcare subsidies for the elderly in aged homes should be looked into. Mr Tan also told reporters he was heartened to see so many young professionals taking time out to volunteer, and said it is something he wants to promote if elected as President. Accompanying him on his visit was Ms Nicole Seah, who stood in May's General Election as a National Solidarity Party candidate. Mr Tan has approached her to be a speaker at his rally on Tuesday night at the Toa Payoh Stadium. The 24-year-old Miss Seah said that she is willing to take up the invitation, pending Mr Tan's campaign committee's decision. She added that she is helping Mr Tan in her own personal capacity.

Anyone DISAGREE?

In the past week alone there has been alot of public outrage over the captioned issues. Every one also knows the review process is a wayang show and the review committee is a bogus PAP yes man committee. See below ; 1) Obscene Salaries Justifies on Grounds of Dignity??? : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/7256 2) PAP MP Lim Wee Kiak's defence on Obscene Ministers pay sparks more : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/7257 3) Bogus Committee to Review Million Dollar Ministers Salaries???: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/7247 Its also really quite revolting to the senses how the pigs from Animal farms try to justify such payouts and its even more disgusting that the propaganda local SPH media is ochestrating and supporting this deceit....

That what we are looking for , this kind of ppl should be in the review committee not some pap yes man! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC11...-private-sector by Mak Yuen Teen 04:46 AM May 26, 2011 Last week, I taught executive and director pay to an executive MBA class and, during lunch, the subject of conversation at my table was ministerial pay in Singapore - a regular topic among the executives attending the programme over the years. While most of the rest of the world is concerned with high executive pay, this must be the only country where ministerial salaries are of more interest. Quite coincidentally, on Saturday morning, I had begun writing a commentary with the tentative title of "Ministerial pay: Lessons from corporate scandals and the financial crisis". That night, I saw on the news the Prime Minister's announcement that he was setting up a committee to review ministerial pay. When you pay poorly, you might still get good people but, undoubtedly, the pool you select from will be smaller. You may also attract some who are willing to take low pay because they want to use their position for other benefit, such as taking bribes or getting directorships in companies. When you pay very well, the pool will be larger, but you also risk attracting the wrong people who are motivated purely by money. People who are attracted to politics because of the money (or power) might still want to use their positions for their own benefit because for some, it is never enough. I personally do not believe that high pay is effective for fighting corruption; I think it is an affront to the many who make an honest living on low pay to suggest that paying little encourages corruption. However, it is very difficult to determine what is the "right" pay for CEOs, people with very specialised skills - and government ministers. For CEOs, certain "benchmarks" have been suggested, such as some percentage of profits, some ratio to average employee pay, the pay of sports stars and celebrities or fellow CEOs. None of these are wholly satisfactory. Benchmarking ministerial pay to other professions has its limitations because they are totally different jobs, and different jobs come with different lifestyles and employment risks. When I look at my peers who have gone to the private sector, many are earning a lot more than I do now, but they do not have my more flexible lifestyle as an academic, and they are not able to achieve tenure which gives better job security. In any case, I believe that the best people in any field are those who are driven first by their passion and calling. IT'S HOW THEY EARN IT As a corporate governance advocate, it has never been my concern if someone is well paid and earns it in the right way. I would be outraged if someone makes a lot of money but does so in an illegal or unethical manner, where it is not related to appropriate measures of performance, or the pay determined is through a contaminated process. The corporate sector suggests the following "best practices" which should be followed in setting senior executives pay: - An "arms length" process for determining remuneration policy and packages - Benchmarks used should be comparable (similar job responsibilities, similar size and industry, etc) - There should be a reasonable mix of short- and long-term pay - Pay should be based mainly on factors within the executive's control - Performance measures used for evaluation should have strong links with the corporation's long-term performance - There should be minimal benefits and termination payments that are generally unrelated to performance - There is good disclosure and transparency A private sector approach which treats running a country as equivalent to running a corporation is, of course, flawed to start out with. After all, a government can always print money, raise taxes, determine whether it wants to make a profit (budget surplus) or a loss (budget deficit) and so on. Tying ministerial bonuses to annual GDP growth can create the same perverse incentives as tying CEO pay to annual revenue growth. For example, it can lead to incentives to invest in projects with high economic payoffs, but with attendant high social costs and under-investing for long-term growth. But if we are determined to follow a private sector approach to setting ministerial pay, then we should go the whole nine yards and adopt similar sound pay practices, which could involve the following. (Incidentally, when I showed someone the draft of this commentary, I was alerted to a 2007 speech by MP Denise Phua in which she made some similar points. I am glad there was such an alternative voice in Parliament and wish that her views were taken more seriously then.) DEFER PAY, BE TRANSPARENT One, have an independent ministerial pay committee to oversee ministerial pay policy and levels (members must be independent and perceived to be so). Two, adopt a small number of macro performance measures which capture overall performance in a holistic way (such as average GDP growth, average wage growth, Gini coefficient and unemployment rate) and micro performance measures which directly reflect a particular minister's performance (such as traffic accident rates, average expressway speeds, admission rates of Singaporeans into local universities, percentage of low-income families owning HDB flats). Three, tie a minister's pay primarily to his individual responsibilities and performance, based on his portfolio (a small component can be tied to more macro measures but these may be more relevant to assessing the performance of the "chief executive", that is, the Prime Minister). Four, benchmark targets such as GDP growth to trends in comparable economies, to better ensure that improvements are not largely due to external factors (for example, a significant increase in GDP growth - just like a significant increase in a company's stock price - may be driven more by general trends in the inter-connected global economy). Five, defer a part of a minister's pay for a number of years and put in place conditions under which the deferred pay may be reduced. Six, eliminate or significantly reduce pensions and other benefits not linked to a minister's performance. And seven, publish a report each year on the actual amount of each minister's pay and its breakdown. This may sound like an awfully tedious process for setting ministerial pay. Unfortunately, corporate scandals and the recent financial crisis have taught us that poorly designed pay schemes set through a flawed process and which lack transparency can create perverse incentives and undermine governance. The current approach to setting ministerial pay emulates the pay levels in the private sector but not the sound pay principles that well-governed companies follow. If we are not prepared to adopt similarly robust processes and practices for setting ministerial pay, then perhaps we should just follow how other countries determine pay for their government officials. We can then rely more on robust selection processes and strong enforcement of laws to take to task ministers who are corruptible, in order to ensure that we get ethical and competent government leaders. However, even if we decide to "de-privatise" ministerial pay, I believe there are certain merits in adopting some of the good practices in the private sector approach - such as having a more independent mechanism for setting ministerial pay, having better measures of ministerial performance, creating mechanisms to encourage ministers to focus on longer-term consequences of decisions, and greater transparency in ministerial pay. This may minimise the risk of receiving an "unexpected" performance appraisal from the electorate every four years. Mak Yuen Teen is an associate professor at NUS Business School

Article in US but nonetheless still an interesting read. http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/02/07/s...-out-at-age-40/

Ministers

Not by wages alone... A few weeks ago there was this letter[Link] to the Straits Times Forum by former perm sec Ngiam Tong Dow arguing that a CPF cut would be a better strategic move than the Jobs Credit Scheme (JCS). He argued that a direct wage cut would be better than a wage subsidy because "subsidies cannot be sustained for long if our workers are no longer as productive as their peers in other, perhaps hungrier, countries, particularly in a knowledge-based global economy". He argued workers should bite the bullet like they did in 1984 take all the pain and sacrifice to get Singapore out of its current mess. I'm not sure what is so strategic or long term about CPF cuts - the CPF is suppose to be a provident fund for our retirement not an economic tool to bail the economy out everytime there is a recession. Why didn't he propose that landlords slash rents by 40% to help make the economy more competitive? That was what many retailers wanted[link]Why didn't he propose that other costs such as utilities, govt fees, etc be slashed to make Singapore more competitive? Why is it wages ...wages and always wages? A CPF cut is 'undoable' for several reasons - the HDB default is 8% going into this recession and a CPF cut will push many Singaporeans to the 'brink'...we are not talking about just taking 'pain' it will be agony. We are also going into this recession with the highest income gap in our history and the govt is already giving workfare which is a form of wage subsidy out of necessity. There are also many flexi-wage components in our wages today that can be cut by the employers if they choose to do so. Also, if wages are the issue and the businesses need those cuts to retain people, the employer can just initiate wages cut himself. Politically if the PAP is going for elections such a move is completely unwise because many Singaporeans are still waiting for the 'temporary' CPF cuts of 1984 to be restored...and this will be bad political strategy. For a while, I was quite amazed that Ngiam Tong Dow, a former top civil servant, can actually come up with such a suggestion. But the PAP govt itself did not miss this idea because when Minister Lim Swee Say debated MP Low in parliament he tried to counter Low by asking "CPF cut or JCS?"...which would Low prefer? MP Low said neither. Many saw this whole episode as Minister Lim trying to trick MP Low and MP Low not falling for it. I believe Minister Lim was more honest than that. I believe the PAP govt confronted with the current slump saw only 2 options which are 2 ways to do the same thing - cut wage bills of companies. There appears to be a box that the govt is thinking within...I will attempt to identify this box. Think hard. Where are we today actually? This is our 3rd recession in 10 years! This is Australia's 1st recession in 25 years (hmmm....do we blame people for wanting to migrate there?). When Ngiam wrote that we should cut CPF to be more competitive, what is this economic contest ordinary Singaporeans have signed up for? Is this a slimming contest with a buffet voucher for winners?...Or is it a slimming contest that allows you join another slimming contest if you survive the 1st one? 3 recessions within a decade.... I think Singaporeans will begin to ask fundamental questions about our economy and the old bureaurcat's solution to apply the same old formula to cut CPF and to fight the pain with more pain only serve to remind us how far down the tunnel we have gone applying old formula to grow our economy. Keep wages low relative to productivity, get foreign direct investments and export....and they kept applying this formula as income gaps ballooned and the ordinary Singaporean households become strain due to the rising cost of living. Wages were the only thing they kept low as housing, transport, etc were continuously raised. When wages were not low enough, the PAP govt open the floodgates to foreign workers who came by the hundreds of thousands. We ended up with an income distribution that is only found in 3rd world countries, an economy that was so reliant on export it became the 1st one in Asia to go into recession and right now is the fastest deteriorating economy in the region. Think about it ....if we keep applying this old tired formula, where will we be 2 decades from now? What would life be like for you and your children?! Lets take a step back...and see what is going on. Lets start with the Foreign Talent Policy. It was originally sold to us as a policy to attract the best talents from around the world for skills Singaporeans do not have. I think most Singaporeans supported this idea because it made sense - Singapore can only be better off if we brought in the best people. However, the Foreign Talent Policy became a cheap labor policy opening the floodgates to foreign workers to lower labor cost. Our govt policy to bring in foreign labor is not one of moderation - no other country has become so dependent on foreign labor than Singapore except for the oil rich states in the Middle East. The presence of such a large low cost foreign labor force allowed Singapore to grow its GDP - retaining industries that shouldn't be retained and growing industries that shouldn't be expanding if not for cheap foreign labor. These industries compete for scarce resources such as industrial space, transport services, etc causing the other costs of doing business to escalate. Enterprises that are build on the strength of Singaporean labor now have to face rising costs (rental etc) and have no choice but to keep wages low to stay profitable. Allowing the labor force to be so elastic when the other factors of production create distortions in the economy. In 2007, the rentals of industrial and office space escalated to record levels as the economy and there was no corresponding increase in wages. It was also painful for Singaporeans who needed to rent or buy homes when property market shot up to the stratosphere when wages remain flat. It is a no brainer that expanding labor the force by importing labor causes the GDP to shoot up the question is whether this is beneficial to Singaporeans in the long run. We just need to look at what happened in Dubai last month to figure out the downside of such a policy[Link]. What good is GDP growth if it is not sustainable or healthy? We have the type of economy in which things are bad for many Singaporeans when our GDP was growing and things are worse when the growth falters. Being able to import foreign labor in large numbers and implementing wage based solutions to every economic challenge we face is actually a moral hazard as it takes away the determination to find more sustainable solutions that requires restructuring of our economy. Entrepreneurship and innovation that creates new industries that don't depend on cheap labor remains lacking as we have made little political progress to create the environment that foster these and risk taking associated with entrepreneurship can only happen in a big way when you have certain social safety nets in place. We also need to be less reliant on exports and keep our domestic economy growing. When the Hong Kong population was our size, they had a far more vibrant domestic economy and Finland whose population size is comparable to Singapore has a far bigger domestic economy. Our domestic economy remains small as the disposal income of Singaporeans relative to GDP is small compared with many other countries. We have one of the largest household debt as a % of GDP in the world to service and that takes a toll on spending. It is as if we worked hard to earn the money only to hand it over to HDB for housing - HDB accumulates this to give it to GIC/Temasek to buy risk assets overseas. If we spend more of that money, it will go round in our economy creating jobs and improving the quality of life for Singaporeans. If you spend an extra $10 for a better haircut, your hairstylist may be able to eat better as he uses this to buy better food from the hawker and the hawker has an extra $10 to take his kid for an outing and so on. There is hardly any multiplier effect when we hand this $10 over to HDB to service our debts which than hands it to GIC/Temasek. "For every one manufacturing worker hired in Singapore, a company can hire three in Malaysia, eight in Thailand, 13 in China and 18 in India" - Goh Chok Tong, 2003.[Link] Very often when something goes wrong with the economy, our leaders blame Singaporeans for not being productive enough, for earning too much pay compared to their counterparts in Malaysia, India and China. But how does a Singaporean worker competes when he has to incur the cost of paying for the most expensive public housing in the world, utilities rate that is among the highest in the world and ministers along with a civil service that is paid the highest salaries in the world. But think even harder...what has wages got to do with being competitive? Finland has among the highest wages in the world and is the 2nd most competitive economy in the world. What wages have to do with being competitive depends on how successful we are at other aspects of boosting competitiveness. The fact that we have again resorted to cutting wage costs to keep this export dependent economy from sinking shows that we have not been successful anything else...

Salaries of CEOs of Motor Companies Sent to me by AT According to Equilar Inc., an executive compensation research and data provider, the annual compensation of the following CEOs (in USD) were: President of Toyota: $1 million CEO of General Motor (Wagoner: $15.7 million CEO of Ford Motor (Mulally): $22.8 million, What

Singapore could face another round of inflation if firms raise wages By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 09 July 2008 2154 hrs [image]http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/php6lMXZT.jpg[/image] Tharman Shanmugaratnam SINGAPORE : Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has warned that Singapore could face another round of inflation if companies increase wages to help workers cope with the higher cost of living today. He said this will also affect Singapore's competitiveness and the ability to create jobs. Mr Tharman was speaking to some 500 workers at the Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union dinner on Wednesday evening. Higher rice and oil prices have led some Singaporeans to call on the government to set the tone by raising wages. But Mr Tharman said such short-term measures are not prudent. Instead, he said the government has provided assistance to help Singaporeans deal with the higher cost of living. These include S$500 million in GST Credits - to help citizens cope with the increased Goods and Services Tax - and special bonuses for senior citizens. Mr Tharman said Singapore also addresses the problem of inflation mainly through its exchange rate policy. Since the beginning of last year, the Singapore dollar has appreciated by 11 per cent against the US dollar. However, the minister said there is a limit to how much Singapore can allow its dollar to rise to fight inflation. Mr Tharman said if Singapore dramatically strengthens its dollar to offset the higher prices, it will instead hurt economic growth badly. He said oil prices have increased by 50 per cent since the start of this year. And it has gone up by about 100 per cent compared to a year go. Food prices globally are now up to 60 per cent higher than one year ago. Mr Tharman cautioned Singaporeans to brace themselves as oil prices may increase further. He said, "We expect inflation to be between 5-6 per cent on average this year, with inflation being lower towards the end of the year. We also expect inflation in the second half of the year to be lower because the effects of last July's GST increase on inflation will wear out. "However, the recent sharp increase in global oil prices will add pressure on inflation. So we are monitoring this and the impact on inflation closely, and will decide if inflation forecasts for this year need to be revised." Looking at the global situation, Mr Tharman said the weakness in the US economy could extend into next year. But he maintains that Singapore can expect Gross Domestic Product growth to average between four and six per cent this year. Mr Tharman said the lasting solution to inflation is to continue with efforts to help workers upgrade their skills and earn better wages. He said it is also important to help experienced, mature workers stay employed and help home-makers get back to work. This will not only increase the household income, but help improve Singapore's tight labour market. - CNA/ms Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin.../359295/1/.html YEAH! MORE GOOD YEARS AHEAD~! MIW CAN RAISE SALARY BUT WE CANNOT.

Finally! Some respite for our suffering citizens! Read about it here! http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2008/04/some-good-news.html

Here is some good news for those hardworking teachers... Teachers' salaries to go up under new package that costs S$380m By Satish Cheney, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 28 December 2007 1854 hrs Photos 1 of 1 Related Videos Teachers' salaries to go up under new package that costs S$380m SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Education (MOE) announced at the Principals' Appointment Ceremony Friday that principals and teachers will get higher pay packages starting April 2008. Under a new initiative called Grow 2.0, the annual package of good performing teachers will be increased by up to 12%, while that for better performers will be increased by up to 18%. Costing the government S$380 million per year, this new pay and career package is aimed at making the teaching profession more attractive. Under the new scheme, teachers will receive a one-off salary increment of up to four per cent. They will also be placed on a salary range system with merit increments that are based on one's performance, potential and market wage movements. This will replace the current salary scale system with fixed annual increments. Under the new initiative, there will be higher performance bonuses and sharper differentiation in payouts based on performance. Teachers will receive performance bonuses ranging from one month to 2.25 months. And prior to the roll-out of the new scheme, a performance bonus top-up ranging from 0.5 month to 1.25 months will be given in March. With the above changes, a classroom teacher with three years experience can see his or her annual pay package rise from S$52,000 to S$58,000. And for an outstanding performer, the new package can mean a jump from S$55,000 to S$65,000. Minister for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam said at the annual ceremony, "(Offering) competitive salaries (is) a necessary but not a sufficient condition... We have to ensure pay remains competitive at every level of the education service." Besides better pay and bigger bonus, the new package will provide teachers with a more attractive remuneration package, more career and development opportunities and greater flexibility to balance the demands of work and family. Currently, only female teachers can apply for no-pay childcare leave up to the child's third birthday. But under the new scheme, both male and female teachers can apply for no-pay childcare leave up to the child's fourth birthday. Yew Tee Primary School teacher Sharul Hisham said, "With regards to work-life balance initiatives that have been announced by the minister, the teaching profession will be more attractive." The new package will also enhance the financial support and leave schemes to enable more teachers to upgrade themselves. Principal of Raffles Junior College Lim Lai Cheng welcomed the new initiative. "At the moment, we're facing challenges of students who are more exposed, who have a stronger hunger for knowledge within a subject area. If teachers can be experts in their areas, definitely (it) will help engage the students better." In addition, more teachers can opt to teach part-time under the new scheme. And up to five more teacher posts will be given to each school cluster to support schools with teachers who are pursuing full-time postgraduate studies. The ministry will also enhance its long-term incentive plan known as CONNECT Plan. Under the current plan, teachers receive annual deposits throughout their career and can draw out a proportion of the money every three to five years. The new package will bring up the total career deposits for CONNECT by about six per cent. Education officers can also draw out their full deposits after 30 years, instead of the current 40 years. The ministry said it is targeting to have 30,000 teachers employed by 2010. Currently it has about 29,000. This year, the resignation rate for teachers was three per cent, half a percentage point more than the previous year. - CNA/ac Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin.../319634/1/.html