It has been a rather exciting week, and in fact, an exciting December when it is usually a quiet month because most people are away on vacation and pretty much nothing happens. So here’s a (not so) short take on what’s transpired in the last few days.

Transport Fares – Revisited

Lui Tuck Yew should simply just shut up and sit down. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to insist that commuters should face endless fare increments when the Public Transport Operators [PTO] have already received S$1.1 billion (that’s S$1,100,000,000 for those who loved to see the zeros) in handouts, have been making healthy profits all these years with not only no visible improvements so far but having suffered several moderate to major breakdowns over the past few years. All the more so, when he insists on that in the wake of the SMRT’s own failure to handle its own human resource problems.

There is no such thing as the costs being is paid for by the commuters, taxpayers in the form of government subsidies or PTOs. The government likes to make everything look like a 3-party relationship to portray the image of perfection when none of that really ever exists. Be it commuters or taxpayers, they are still the people. In other words it’s either paid by the PTO or the people. When the people has paid so much and has always been paying either in the form of the Bus Services Enhancement Program [BSEP] and never ending fare increments, it is high time for the operators to take up some of that slack!

Can the minister really tell us that the operators have not been commercially viable in view of their ever increasing profits? Don’t tell me that the cost to operate or fuel prices whatever have gone up 30% while fares did not catch up as much. It is clear in spite of that PTOs are clearly not only capable in managing those costs, but even turn a profit. Can the minister really say service have improved after the previous fare increments? If service has really improved at all, why had it turned into a hot issue during the 2011 General Elections and as a result the BSEP has to be introduced? As for reinvesting part of their profits, the question would be why haven’t they done so after the previous fare increments? Why did the PRC drivers go on strike if the terms and salaries for staff have been constantly improving? It would appear to me that this matter didn’t just boil over in a short period, but that the grievances of those drivers haven’t been addressed for a long time.

What exactly happened to all those profits accumulated in the past? Since Lui actually mentioned signalling systems, the fact of the matter is, SMRT has mentioned that this was why train frequencies cannot be increased even before the major breakdown in December 2011. What the hell took the SMRT so long to decide to upgrade it? By the way, isn’t upgrading the signalling systems part of improving the reliability of the train network? If so, did the minister forget that he said a few months ago that it will not be passed to commuters? Or did we again misunderstand the minister as we all too often misunderstood his other colleagues as well?

Seriously, the Prime Minister should consider sending some of these ministers to communication skills classes. Alternatively, try to explain and talk about things in a way that even a Primary 5 student can understand. That way it leaves no room for misunderstanding.

~ * ~

Equal remuneration for all in the same jobs?

Can you imagine that this Lim Swee Say person is actually ministerial material and considered to the some of the most capable people in this country? The way he put it is wrong in at least two levels. First of all, going by his logic any employer can now “justifiably” pay a single, unmarried Singaporean whose parents have passed away less than his peers because he has no family to support. Next, since there is currently no minimum wage implemented in Singapore, it further allows employers to discriminate against a person from Bangladesh (for example) by paying him even less for a road sweeping or dish collector job compared to the most down and out of luck Singaporean who is already paid dirt for that job. (Note: I am not trying to advocate for minimum wages here.)

So what is the context and basis behind the call for “equal remuneration for all in the same jobs” [Chinese: 同工同酬]?

It arose because of the recent PRC drivers’ strike, but it is obvious no one is actually asking for a pay increment for every single foreign worker to bring their pay on par with Singaporeans unless he is utterly insane. All the more improbable that many Singaporeans would give a damn about foreign workers since they were recently often accused of xenophobia. Anyway, it has always been clear to any sane and logical person that it is stupid and unfair to insist on absolute “equal pay” for every job, in particular jobs such as research, programming, performers etc. It is also illogical to insist on paying the same for jobs where efficiency is concerned, not to mention that there is a difference in each person’s capabilities and experience. I believe nobody would require any further elaboration here.

Back to the matter of the mainland China [PRC] drivers. When one look beyond their personal resentment against the so-called ‘Ah Tiongs’ (a less than flattering local term for the PRC Chinese), we would understand that part of their grievances was that they were discriminated against in terms of remuneration simply because of nationality. The question here is, since everyone is driving the same bus along the same routes with the same basic skills, why then are PRC drivers paid the least?

So let us consider whether there are any merits of the PRC drivers’ perception of pay discrimination. In my opinion, it is not entirely true because we understood that Singaporean and Malaysian drivers often come with their own value add by default. That comes either in the form of familiarity with the local traffic rules and regulations, or having a language advantage in certain cases. Above which, we also understand that the PRC drivers were given lodging benefits whereby Singaporean or Malaysian drivers would have to fend for themselves in that aspect. But no one can deny that the living conditions of the lodgings provided for the PRC drivers have much room for improvements, as even Singapore’s lapdog media and SMRT’s top management admitted as much. However, it is hard to argue that the recent pay increment was not unfair, if not discriminative when it was given out to increase the pay of drivers overall to attract more new blood to take up the job, and also to discourage existing drivers from quitting. Individual performance or merits was never part of the consideration here.

Thus, the call for “equal pay” for PRC drivers is a more of call for pay equality in essence. In any case, the entry level pay should be the same though an individual may be paid more based on his value add and experience at the employer’s discretion. Increments should then be based on an individual’s capabilities and performance, regardless whether the drivers are contracted or otherwise employed, and not their nationality. Simply put, those who are reckless and drive dangerously, will get less increments or even terminated while those who are commended or praised by commuters will get more.

It seems the NTUC deliberately translated the Chinese words “同工同酬” literally into “equal remuneration for same jobs” and created a straw man argument, because Lim Swee Say said the same thing about pay equality (picture on right) which I just explained above. As far as I am concerned the NTUC’s response serves only one purpose: To turn public opinion against this call for pay equality in spite of its original good intentions! Then again it’s not unexpected considering my long standing opinion of our so-called trade unions.

~ * ~

Michael Palmer’s indiscretion & “Identifying” Laura Ong

Why am I not surprised that it is Lim Swee Say again in this dastardly deed? I can hardly agree with the reasons given in this case. It is like someone saying, “Since you will get shot sooner or later, let me give you a hand by pushing you out into the line of fire.”. That’s exactly how I felt about this so-called explanation. Thus, The word that should be used here is not ‘identify’, but expose.

I have often asked to see some gender equality in cases like these – for the woman to be named and shamed because all too often the men take the fall. But in this case I actually felt sorry for Laura Ong even though I might have called her a slut, a hussy or any horrible words I can think of a woman like her. Sadly, she alone took the fall this time, while the press sang the praises of “Saint Michael von Palmer”.

As far as I am concerned, exposing Laura Ong was a calculated move. It was clearly done to divert public attention onto the poor woman and her life while the PAP does damage control, or hope that the people will forget after reading the juicy details of her life. The press should have some decency and end their intrusion into her private life. She may have been in the wrong but enough is enough. Why the difference in handling the matter when the “limelight” is often in the past shone on the men to make them look like cads, if not monsters?

Frankly, I had originally considered it commendable for Palmer to come clean and resign even when a friend pointed out that he only did so after his “love emails and SMSes” were leaked to the press. This friend has a point since it is not unreasonable to believe that this affair might have continued had that not happened. Had the matter gone to public first, Palmer’s handling of the matter and the PAP’s reaction may not have been so well organised. We only need to compare the press’ handling of this case with that of Yaw Shin Leong to see the drastic difference, and remember how they dogged the Workers’ Party back then.

Laura Ong has been shamed enough already. We do not need to know all those other juicy details about her family, her life and her other indiscretions which I will not repeat here. There are bigger issues such as the relationship between the PAP and the People’s Association [PA] mentioned in this article. Michael Palmer is no more “honorable” than Yaw Shin Leong, or Ng Boon Gay. Both have betrayed the trust of their wives. It is utterly shameful for the press to singing praises to the PAP for its handling of this matter in light of what has been done to Laura Ong.