Singapore Aspirations

On housing and wealth creation

2010-04-16T13:37:00.009+08:00

This author recently came across a 2009 Herald article which provided an excellent, incisive critique of the real estate bubble in the United Kingdom.

These paragraphs gave this author the chills when read.. because the situation in the United Kingdom is so strikingly similar to Singapore's:

“Between 1997 and 2001, house prices nearly doubled. They nearly doubled again by 2005. It was as if the government had given every homeowner an average of £100,000. No wonder they voted Labour. We were all corrupted by the housing boom, to some extent.

People talked endlessly about how their houses were earning more than they did, never asking where all this free money was coming from. Well the truth is that it was being stolen from the next generation.

Houses don't produce wealth, they merely transfer it from the young to the old - from the coming generation of families who have to burden themselves with colossal debts if they want to get a roof over their heads, to the baby boomers who are about to retire and live on the cash they make when they downsize.

MPs were the most egregious example of this, but in a sense we were all invested in the housing scam. Well, it's time to call a halt. Our property obsession has been an economic and political disaster.”

On foreigners owning property in Singapore

2010-03-26T10:50:00.008+08:00

Local news reported today that resale prices for private homes have shot through the roof this year. According to one analysis, foreigners make up the majority (60 to 70%) of the buyers of private homes in Singapore, thereby propping the prices up.

Even foreign celebrities, such as Jackie Chan and Emil Chau, have gotten into the act, and purchased a number of condominium units last week, spending in excess of S$10 million.

But Singapore is land scarce, and many local citizens face great difficulty affording their own homes. The incredible rate at which housing prices have been permitted to go up compared to local salary rates is an extremely disappointing reflection of the PAP government’s understanding of the local populace’s housing difficulties.

This author is of the opinion that foreigners should only be allowed to purchase residential properties in Singapore if they actually live in them. Singapore is far too small a country to allow foreigners to speculate in and drive up the prices of residential properties beyond the affordability of the main local populace.

Actually, this author views that ideally, foreigners should not be permitted to purchase properties in Singapore at all. Given Singapore’s limited land area, there is no good reason why foreigners should be allowed to acquire property at the hardship and expense of Singapore citizens (who should be given a decent chance to aspire to owning a private home someday). The PAP government should not have permitted foreigners to purchase private homes, much less, the majority of private homes in Singapore.

On the City Harvest Church and S$310 million

2010-03-25T17:18:00.006+08:00

When this author first heard about how City Harvest Church was going to invest S$310 million in a Suntec stake, this author’s initial thoughts were:

Does God need all this money?

I don’t think God needs any part of this money. Why doesn’t the church (being a registered charity) donate the money to charity?

It appears that in these modern times, many religious institutions have immense sums of money sitting in their coffers, and they even go to financial institutions to invest all this money.

But… God (and by God, I mean any god of any religion) doesn’t need money. It’s only human beings who have a need for money. Why don’t these religions institutions donate all the money to charity? That seems to be a benevolent and godly use of the funds. God would have approved.

On providing public transport for the disabled

2010-03-25T15:13:00.004+08:00

The PAP government has steadfastly to this day refused to introduce laws to require that public transport companies provide free or reduced fares for the physically or intellectually disabled.

The public transport companies, SBS Transit Ltd and SMRT Corporation Ltd have also refused to provide free or reduced fares for the disabled on their own initiative.

Now, public transport for the disabled is a matter of recognising that many disabled persons face financial difficulties in day to day living, and that as a society, we have a moral responsibility to look after our less fortunate members.

It is not asking for too much. Please understand that this is only a minority segment of society who deserves our care and concern. There are no substantial profit reductions asked for or floodgates unleashed here.

This sad, heartless state of affairs cannot continue.

The government should make the laws.

The public transport companies should practise corporate social responsibility.

But given that these institutions have failed to do so.. this author would like to make an appeal to all shareholders of SBS Transit Ltd, SMRT Corporation Ltd and even ComfortDelgro Corporation Ltd (which is the holding company of SBS Transit Ltd) to bring up this issue at the next general meeting of each company. As shareholders, you own the company and you have the ability and the right to require that the company do something for the less abled. Alternatively, this author would like to ask those who can and are willing to do so, to purchase the smallest possible portion of shares in any of these companies and make the request at the next general meeting of the relevant company.

If enough caring shareholders vote for it, free/discounted public transport for the disabled can happen.

Please feel free to pass on this message.

On COE prices and quotas

2010-03-25T14:19:00.007+08:00

Today’s news reported that COE prices had gone up by as much as S$14,411 in the latest bidding exercise, with the most expensive COE (the open category COE) costing S$42,001.

The huge increases were because the government was going to limit the supply of COEs from April 2010 onwards by pegging it to actual vehicle deregistrations.

The present cost of a COE makes car ownership prohibitively expensive and out of reach from the common population of Singapore.

Is there a way to alleviate this cost of car ownership? Well, how about having a COE quota for foreigners? Say, a 25% quota, which means that 25% of the COEs released each month will go to foreigners, while 75% of the COEs will go to Singapore citizens.

Having such separate categories of COEs for foreigners and citizens will likely reduce the COE prices for citizens (because there will be more available COEs for them), and in effect make foreigners subsidise some of the high costs of car ownership (as the foreigners will probably pay a higher rate of COE given a limited quota). More importantly, it would also benefit citizens (who have long term interests vested here compared to foreigners who are here for the short term) by giving them priority in owning cars and driving on the roads of their own country.

On Singapore citizenship and permanent residency

2010-03-24T14:41:00.008+08:00

There’s been a lot of buzz of late on how Singapore citizens don’t have much of an advantage compared to Singapore permanent residents. In fact, citizens are at a distinct disadvantage in many instances, e.g. compulsory National Service obligations (which also frequently negatively affect employers’ preferences) and the prohibition of dual citizenships.

In an attempt (weak, in this author’s opinion) to placate some of these complaints, the PAP government tried to fix the problem by giving citizens slightly better benefits, such as better subsidies or priorities in health, education, housing etc.

But the unasked question so far is: is there a need for this creature, permanent residency?

What is permanent residency? Generally, permanent residency refers to a person’s visa status, and a permanent resident is allowed to reside indefinitely within a country despite not having citizenship.

Not all countries have a permanent residency scheme. Those that do, usually have a good reason, such as special ties with certain other countries. For example, an EU national who moves to another EU country can attain permanent resident status after residing there for five years. Also, permanent residence rights are granted automatically between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

But Singapore has no such special ties with other countries, even with Malaysia, its closest geographical neighbour.

Hence, in today’s terms, why not abolish the permanent residency regime in Singapore?

In other words, a person is either a citizen or a foreigner. After all, a permanent resident is still a foreign citizen at the end of the day. There are many permanent residents in Singapore who will never consider converting to citizenship despite living, studying and working here most of their lives, and frankly, it’s usually an emotional thing with them. They do not see Singapore as their home country, and there is no loyalty to Singapore at all. In fact, permanent residents ought not to be considered as Singaporeans.. that just unhelpfully blurs the line between a genuine Singaporean national and a person who is not.

Abolishing the permanent residency regime in Singapore is not only a good idea, it is also right for Singapore. The rationale is that Singapore is a small country with limited natural resources. All nationality benefits (and obligations, such as National Service and Central Provident Fund contributions) should only be reserved for and belong to citizens, who are the ones with the right to vote. Hence, for example, given that land is a scarce and valuable resource in Singapore, only citizens should be permitted to own HDB flats.

If a person doesn’t want to be a citizen, that’s fine. He or she can always choose to be a foreigner working and living in Singapore under an employment pass or work permit – there is no problem with that. The expression “permanent resident” is really a misnomer.. the person isn’t residing in Singapore permanently at all, only temporarily. If a person truly wants to make Singapore a permanent home, just be a citizen. There is no need for a hybrid creation like “permanent resident”.

There are many benefits which can be gained from abolishing the permanent residency regime, which will far outweigh the downsides, if any. Housing will be freed up, and the red hot inflated prices will have a chance to be at a normal realistic level. Jobs will be freed up as some permanent residents (who never intended to be citizens anyway) choose to leave. Lots of governmental savings can be made because all the subsidies and benefits that used to go to permanent residents will no longer be required. Overcrowding will be alleviated. All the headaches and problems which the PAP government had futilely been trying to address regarding citizen vs. permanent resident benefits will go away.

The permanent residency scheme can be phased out. All eligible permanent residents can be offered the chance to become a citizen of Singapore. As for the ineligible permanent residents, they simply revert to being plain foreigners, which is exactly who they were all along anyway.

What do you think?

On the Jack Neo sex scandal and sexual harassment in the workplace

2010-03-15T20:16:00.009+08:00

Much has been said about Singapore filmmaker Jack Neo’s infidelity recently. But little has been raised in regard to how his behaviour likely constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, and in particular, the lack of specific laws in Singapore that protect employees from sexual harassment and give employees an avenue for seeking redress.

What is sexual harassment? One definition is that sexual harassment is the “intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favours”. It includes a range of behaviours from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault.

In the recent Jack Neo scandal, a number of women alleged that he made unwelcome sexual advances on them while they were in his employ or acting in his movies. Such behaviour certainly constitutes sexual harassment.

In this author’s view, every employee (whether female or male) should be protected by law from sexual harassment at the workplace. Furthermore, any employee who is sexually harassed at the workplace deserves an avenue of redress against the harasser. This is especially so if the harasser is in a position of authority over the victim. An employee who has been sexually harassed at the workplace should not be helpless without legal protection to defend herself or himself, and should not have to make the wretched choice of either losing the job or giving in to the unwelcome sexual demands of the harasser. If at all, the harasser is the one who should be penalised.

Now, sexual harassment is illegal in many countries, but unfortunately for Singapore employees, sexual harassment is not specifically illegal in Singapore.

In other countries, employers and harassers are legally responsible (under criminal and civil laws) for sexual harassment against their employees and liable to them for damages (i.e. monetary compensation for loss or injury). Examples of such countries include the United States, United Kingdom, the member states of the European Union, Australia, China, Philippines, India and Israel.

Why are there no specific laws enacted against sexual harassment in Singapore? It seems to this author that there are no good reasons why not, and it is time this lacuna is addressed by the Singapore government. In fact, sexual harassment is a prevalent problem in Singapore. In a 2008 study conducted by AWARE, 54% of the 500 participants surveyed reported having been sexually harassed at work. This includes both men and women.

Victimised employees need protection. And in this author’s personal opinion, it would not do to condone, or to rally around and support a harasser. Laws are vital to ensure that employers take pro-active steps to protect their employees from sexual harassment in the workplace, safeguard their careers and livelihoods, and give them a way to lodge their grievances. Having laws against sexual harassment will benefit not only local employees, but also the significant population of foreigners who come to Singapore to work (and who may otherwise be deterred from coming or harmed by the lack of sexual harassment laws). Certainly, such laws would go a long way in deterring a number of would-be offenders and protecting employees, and reprehensible cases such as the Jack Neo saga could be minimised or averted.

On advertisements and the truth

2010-01-15T10:50:00.021+08:00

Kudos to kitchen tigress for teaching local bank, OCBC, a lesson on misleading advertisements!

Briefly: OCBC had been advertising that it surprises its customers with birthday cakes on their birthdays. On her birthday, kitchen tigress went to OCBC to claim her birthday cake, but was told by staff that it was just an advertisement and they don’t give birthday cakes to customers. This didn’t faze kitchen tigress one bit, and after sticking to her guns, an OCBC supervisor eventually relented and bought her a cake.

For too long, advertisers in Singapore have gotten away with feeding misleading advertisements and outright lies to consumers. This should stop. Here, OCBC advertised and gave the expectation that its customers would be surprised with birthday cakes – this didn’t happen for kitchen tigress. As for other misleading and possibly even false advertisements, these include weight loss services by slimming centres, hair growth products and services, and of course, financial products that are supposed to be “safe” (we all know the recent famous example which needs no introduction).

Companies should learn to tell the truth when advertising their products and services. If you can’t be truthful, then you shouldn’t be allowed to peddle your wares.

Do we have laws in Singapore regarding false and misleading advertisements? To some extent, we do. For example:

There is the Misrepresentation Act, where if a person enters into a contract under a misrepresentation, then that person is entitled to cancel the contract, and possibly claim for losses suffered.

There is the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, where it is prohibited for a supplier to (a) cause a consumer to be deceived or misled, (b) make a false claim, or (c) take advantage of a consumer.

Examples of such behaviour include (i) representing that goods or services have performance characteristics or benefits that they do not have (weight loss or hair growth products and services may fall into these category), and (ii) offering gifts, prizes or other free items in connection with the supply of goods or services if the supplier knows that these items will not be provided (OCBC’s free birthday cake may fall into this category).

There is also an interesting concept in law, where if someone advertises that he would do something in return for your action (say for example, give you a surprise birthday cake if you sign up as a bank customer), and you actually do it, then it is a binding contract in law and that someone has to fulfil his promise!

A famous case which happened in England in 1892 was the “Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company” case, where a certain Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that its “smoke ball” would cure flu, and if it did not, buyers would receive £100. Ms Carlill tried the smoke ball, which failed to cure her flu. When Carbolic denied giving her the £100, saying that it was only an advertisement gimmick and not to be taken seriously, Ms Carlill sued Carbolic and successfully got her £100.

Now, the abovementioned laws are not very effective, because they do not make it an offence for companies to advertise in a false or misleading manner. These laws only help consumers who are willing to go to court to seek redress. However, hardly anyone would bother going to court to seek redress – it’s troublesome and usually not worth the while because most people would not have spent very much anyway on the actual good or service.

So what can the government do to properly protect consumers in Singapore? Easy, pass a law that bans and makes it an offence to have false or misleading advertisements. This way, the onus is on companies and advertisers to be mindful of their responsibility to the public.

For completeness, it should be mentioned that a few items, such as medicines, have statutory regulations making it an offence for persons or companies to advertise them in a false or misleading manner in Singapore. But for most products and services in general, there are no such laws, and it’s about time something is done.

The objective here is not stifle creativity in advertising. For example, a tagline such as “Red Bull gives you wings”, while it is a cute tagline, the Red Bull beverage of course doesn’t give its drinkers any wings, and no reasonable person would expect it to do so, so there’s no harm (just a note here: in the opinion of this author, companies can come up with great taglines which are genuine, such as “HSBC – the world’s local bank”. Now that’s something which HSBC can try to deliver to its customers). But if a company advertises something that is humanly possible (such as a birthday cake surprise for its customers), then it should jolly well carry out its promise.

On the closure of hotel spas

2009-12-21T17:01:00.003+08:00

Two spa businesses suffered sudden closures in Singapore recently, leaving their customers stranded with useless packages that have already been expensively paid for. These two businesses, Wellness Village Spa and Simply Spa International, operated outlets in good, well-known hotels, being the Pan Pacific Hotel and the Parkroyal Hotel respectively.

The aggrieved customers are now fighting to get their money back through the aid of the Consumers Association of Singapore and the Small Claims Tribunal, although it is not certain that these spa businesses even have any money left to refund their customers.

What can be done to prevent such incidents from happening again in future?

One suggestion has been made regarding chargeback schemes for credit card users, where consumers can reverse a credit card transaction if they do not receive goods or services that have been purchased from merchants.

But it seems to this author, that hotels should also play an important role in preventing such incidents. After all, any business (including spa businesses) which sets up shop in a good hotel will be relying on the name, goodwill and reputation of the hotel to attract customers. Most customers do not associate shady, fly-by-night businesses with shops that are found in a good hotel. Moreover, hotels have a vested interest in preventing such incidents from happening, because if hotel shops falter and leave customers in the lurch, they will also tarnish the name of the hotel.

There is, in fact, something that the hotels can do. And that is to require the businesses which set up shop in the hotels to maintain a certain minimum capital in their companies. In a way, the capital can serve as an assurance that the company will be able to meet its debts and obligations as and when they fall due. If this had been done in the case of Wellness Village Spa and Simply Spa International, the affected customers may have some assurance that there is money in the companies from which to get their refunds.

Now this is not a new idea, and there are some shopping malls in Singapore that require their shop tenants to maintain adequate capital, so as to protect the mall landlords as well as the customers.

If a business cannot afford to maintain an adequate capital, then the hotel should not bother with allowing such business to run in the hotel. As seen from the case of the two failed spa businesses, there is just too much risk in allowing one dollar companies to operate one day and disappear the next, leaving hundreds of customers stranded.

On internet security in Singapore

2009-12-09T20:30:00.005+08:00

According to a recent report by computer security expert, McAfee, Singapore has the 10th riskiest internet domains in the world.

This means that if you surf to a Singapore-registered website which ends with “.sg”, the chances of your computer contracting some form of malware is very high. According to McAfee, Singapore’s risky websites rose appreciably from 0.3% last year to 9.1% this year, although, McAfee found that the dangers appear to be of a moderate level rather than severe level. Interestingly, McAfee highlighted Chinese pharmacy spam sites in Singapore as a main cause of risk.

In comparison, Malaysia’s domains (.my) were ranked relatively safe at #80 out of 104 domains with a rating of only 0.3% risk, while Japan’s domains (.jp) were established to be the safest country domains with a rating of only 0.1% risk.

According to McAfee, when scammers and hackers register their malicious websites, they look for registrars with:

lack of regulation

ease of registration

lowest price

Given that Singapore’s domains (.sg) are ranked among the top 10 riskiest internet domains in the world, presumably, scammers and hackers view that there is little regulation involved in registering the .sg domains, and they are easy as well as cheap to register.

Now, why should dangerous internet domains be an important concern for Singapore? Well, a bad reputation for Singapore websites could negatively affect legitimate businesses in Singapore who intend to rely on e-commerce. Internet users may not trust websites ending with .sg for fear of contracting malware or succumbing to scams. In fact, if Singapore’s standing as a reliable and trustworthy place in the internet world is lowered, the potential impact is global.

So, does Singapore have laws against computer crimes such as websites with malware? Yes, in fact, it does. The main legislation is the Computer Misuse Act which was passed in 1993. There are a variety of activities which are considered offences under the Act, such as:

unauthorised access to, or modification of, computer material

unauthorised use or interception of computer service

unauthorised obstruction of use of computer

unauthorised disclosure of access code

The penalties for committing these offences are severe, especially if damage is caused, ranging up to fines of S$50,000 and jail terms of 10 years. If the offences involve threats to national security, the penalties can be enhanced up to fines of S$100,000 and jail terms of 20 years.

So, on the face of it, Singapore appears to have adequate laws against computer crimes. But are these laws being enforced? Well, the main agency tasked to tackle computer crimes, is the Technology Crime Division of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Singapore Police Force. This division conducts investigation, forensic examination and prosecution into technology-related offences committed under the Computer Misuse Act, such as hacking and unauthorised access to account.

Is the Technology Crime Division doing enough to counter scammers and hackers in Singapore? At present, this author is unable to find specific statistics on how many scammers and hackers have been successfully prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act. Admittedly, it is a difficult job to fight computer crime and to bring elusive scammers and hackers before the law. Even with a dedicated unit like the Technology Crime Division, the evidence of Singapore’s poor security ranking for internet domains indicate that many scammers and hackers do thrive in Singapore.

What else can Singapore do? Well, the key may lie in making it difficult for scammers and hackers to register their domains. The .sg domains are registered by SGNIC’s accredited registrars, such as SingNet. Perhaps, for a start, these registrars can require domain applicants (as well as current domain owners) to furnish more detailed information and proof of identity. And whenever news of malicious domains is notified to the registrars, the registrars should act quickly to investigate and disable such domains, as well as report them to the police. In this respect, SGNIC may also consider providing an easy website form for users to report malicious Singapore websites.

Update: Local media picked up on this news on 18 December 2009.

On restricting employees from competing or soliciting

2009-12-03T15:23:00.004+08:00

It seems a fairly common practice in Singapore for employers to contractually impose post-employment restrictions on their employees to prevent them from working for a competitor or taking fellow employees away.

Because of these restrictions in their employment contracts, many employees worry that they cannot work for companies of their choice after leaving their employers. Further concerns which they have include:

They cannot earn a living during the period of restraint, especially if their skills are not easily adaptable to other kinds of work.

Their skills may be rendered sterile if not actively used.

Their work experience will be adversely affected.

Why do employers impose such restrictions? Well, there are legitimate reasons for doing so if an employer wants to protect certain interests, such as:

Preventing unauthorised use of its special trade connections.

Preventing unauthorised use of its business secrets.

Maintaining the stability of its workforce.

There are two competing principles at stake here: an employee’s freedom to work versus an employer’s right to protect its business interests.

Are these restrictions legal in Singapore? The short answer to this appears to be, it depends – on whether the restrictions are reasonable:

First, as mentioned, the employer must have genuine legitimate interests to protect.

Second, the extent of the restrictions themselves (such as the types of activity being restrained, the geographical area of restraint, the duration of restraint etc.) should be no more than necessary to protect the employer’s business interests.

Third, the restrictions also have to be reasonable from a public policy viewpoint.

If the restrictions fail to meet any of these conditions, they will not be legal in Singapore.

But often, employers in Singapore impose such restrictions unfairly, either (i) simply to deter or “scare” their employees from working for a competitor, even if the employer doesn’t have adequate interests to protect, or (ii) having unreasonable restrictions, such as lengthy non-competition periods or restraining a wider scope of work than necessary or applying blanket restrictions to all their employees (even rank-and-file employees and junior executives) without heed as to whether these restrictions are even relevant to the nature of the jobs involved.

Now, many of these employees are generally helpless to negotiate the terms of their employment, and have very little choice in the matter. They are invariably taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers in these situations and are effectively “scared” or tied down. They usually also lack the financial resources to seek legal counsel of their own.

It would be good if the Singapore government could recognise this issue, and set up a small unit (perhaps at the Ministry of Manpower) to investigate and help mediate complaints in this respect, and also provide general advice to companies about not restraining their employees unduly.

On the rule of law - form vs. substance

2009-11-02T20:57:00.019+08:00

The concept of the “rule of law” generally means that the law is above every person, and it applies equally to every person.

Whenever criticised about human rights issues in Singapore, the ruling PAP government likes to bring up mention that there is “rule of law” in Singapore. However, it must be noted that there is no precise definition for the expression “rule of law”, and its actual meaning varies with different people. So what the PAP government likely means when it talks about the “rule of law”, is a formal, positivist interpretation, i.e., there is a system of man-made laws which are enacted and carried out by the government.

But this is no big deal. Practically all countries today with functioning governments will possess the “rule of law” in this sense. As a matter of fact, some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by Hitler’s Nazi government under legitimately enacted laws. Yet, after World War II ended, Hitler’s government was subsequently tried and convicted for crimes against humanity.

So, as seen, the formal view of the rule of law contains no requirements whatsoever as to the content of the law. There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity of the law and ethics or morality, and critics have noted that such a system creates a ruling elite that has the power to manipulate through the law. It has thus been observed that consequently, the law cannot serve as an effective barrier to a government’s abuse of power because power structures in society, not the law itself, determine the outcome of legal issues and problems.

There is, however, another higher interpretation of the phrase, “rule of law”. This is known as the substantive interpretation, which holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects human rights. The concept of natural justice comes into play here, and whereas a formal, positivist view would claim that a law can be unjust without it being any less a law, a substantive, naturalist view would observe that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law. As mentioned, individual human rights (i.e., the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law) are protected under a substantive rule of law system, and an unfair, oppressive or unjust law is in a sense regarded as no law at all.

To put it in the local context, for example, Article 14(b) of the Singapore Constitution provides that all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The right of peaceful assembly is generally considered to be an important civil right for citizens. There is a caveat to this right of peaceful assembly, and that is, parliament may impose such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security or public order.

The PAP government had, based on this caveat, enacted rigorous laws (in particular, the Public Order Act) to restrict the holding of public assemblies. One notable aspect of these restrictions is that the PAP government had delegated responsibility for public assemblies to the police, and any person wanting to hold a public assembly is required to obtain a police permit. Unfortunately for the opposition parties in Singapore, the police categorically outlawed all outdoor political events and will not ever grant public assembly permits for such purposes. This in essence deprives a group of citizens of their fundamental right to peaceful assembly. In this scenario, there is rule of law in the formal sense, whereby a government enacts certain laws and carries them out to the letter. But the question is, is there substantive application of the rule of law?

In order for the PAP government to truly address any criticisms of human rights transgressions, it must be able to demonstrate that Singapore has the rule of law not only in the formal sense, but also, in the substantive meaning of the phrase.

On medical leave and the employee

2009-11-02T13:01:00.020+08:00

Medical leave is an employee benefit that is given in the form of paid leave which employees can use during periods of sickness. In most countries, there are statutory laws which provide for and protect the employee’s right to medical leave, especially for the rank-and-file employees who seldom possess the bargaining power to negotiate the terms of their employment.

The approach typically taken in Western countries, with regard to an employee taking medical leave, displays compassion and understanding. If an employee falls ill and requires rest for a couple of days, most companies will allow the employee to call in sick. There is no need for the employee to produce a medical certificate issued by a doctor in order to take short term medical leave. Only in cases of longer medical leave, e.g. four or more days, will medical certification be required. This approach is based on mutual trust and respect accorded between the employer and the employee. The underlying principle which companies adopt, is that the employee is regarded as a mature adult and is trusted not to abuse the benefit given to him or her. Equally, the employee appreciates the trust given, and does not abuse it.

The attitude adopted by the majority of companies in Singapore is markedly different. The employee is required to go to a doctor to obtain a medical certificate as proof of his or her sickness, even for just 1 day of rest. Otherwise, medical leave will not be granted, and the employee’s absence will be considered as unauthorised, with the consequences that the absence will be deducted from his or her annual leave or salary, and possibly, disciplinary action taken.

Why do employers in Singapore treat their employees in this way? Well, Singapore employers claim they are afraid that medical leave benefits will be abused, resulting in a loss of productivity at work.

But if we think about it, the prevailing system in Singapore doesn’t really do much to prevent the abuse of medical leave benefits. Most companies will concede that employees who are determined to use up all their medical leave, will do so anyway whether or not their employers require them to see a doctor and obtain medical certification.

Does abuse exist in the Western system? Yes, of course there are some individuals who will tend to abuse the trust given to them. However, these are isolated cases, and by and large, the majority of employees do not abuse the system.

Now, the cost of providing health care to employees in Singapore is expensive – according to one estimate, it costs between S$800 and S$1,400 annually per worker. The larger companies in Singapore usually procure group health insurance for their employees to cover their medical expenses. However, many small and medium businesses find such group health insurance plans expensive, and they typically choose to reimburse their employees’ medical expenses on a per occurrence basis instead. What Singapore employers may have failed to realise, is that there is actually a cost-saving benefit if an employer allows its employees to call in sick without obtaining medical certification, i.e., medical expenses will not be incurred. Of course, this is in no way advocating that companies should do away with medical certification requirements just to save costs. The principle is about treating the employee as an adult.

To minimise the abuse of medical leave benefits, it is submitted that companies may consider giving small monetary rewards to employees who achieve full attendance (i.e. no medical leave taken) during the work year. Such a gesture will recognise the employees' efforts, and also serve as an incentive for them to keep healthy.

Hopefully, we will someday see a mindset change among Singapore employers in this aspect.

On traffic congestion and car ownership

2009-10-23T17:58:00.013+08:00

Car owners in Singapore do not have it easy.

First, it is costly to own and drive a car. Apart from the purchase price of the car itself, an owner has to contend with various fees and taxes (costing tens of thousands of dollars) imposed by the Singapore government, such as:

Registration fee: Currently $140.

Additional registration fee: Currently equivalent to the open market value of the car in question. This is costly. For example, the open market value of a Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Auto is $17,850.

Certificate of Entitlement (“COE”): To own a car, a person must first successfully bid for one of a limited number of such certificates released monthly by the Land Transport Authority (“LTA”). The certificate can be quite costly, typically costing thousands of dollars. For example, the recent 21 October 2009 open category COE cost $19,901.

Excise duty: Currently equivalent to 20% of the open market value of the car.

Road tax: Based on a formula that is pegged to a car’s engine capacity. For example, the current annual road tax for a 1,600 cc car is $744.

Electronic Road Pricing (“ERP”) tolls: This toll (currently costing between $0.50 and $4) is imposed each time a driver uses certain roads or highways during peak hours.

Second, traffic congestion, especially during peak hours, is a frequent occurrence in Singapore. Based on the figures provided by the LTA, as of the year end 2008, there are a total of 894,682 vehicles in Singapore. The average daily volume of traffic entering the city alone is 278,300 vehicles. And the average speed in the CBD during peak hours? A paltry 26.7 km/h.

The LTA is the governmental agency in charge of all road matters, and the main measures it has adopted to deal with traffic congestion in Singapore are:

COE: Through the issuance of the COE, only a limited quota of new cars are allowed each month. The high cost of the certificate itself also serves as a deterrence to would-be car buyers.

ERP: High toll charges are imposed along certain main roads and highways during peak hours in the anticipation that these will deter drivers and hence provide for smooth traffic.

Off-peak car scheme: Car owners under this scheme may drive their cars only during off-peak hours. In return for this compromise, they pay discounted rates for the COE and other vehicle related taxes.

Do these measures work? Well, to some extent, they do. Still, many Singaporean drivers will readily attest that these measures are not nearly enough to curb traffic congestion.

The problem is that Singapore is not only a small country, but also a densely populated one. Nonetheless, if you want to have smooth traffic flow, the solution is simple: either (a) build more roads or (b) reduce the number of vehicles.

So, can an already built-up Singapore build more roads? Yes. In fact, Singapore’s road density, i.e. road length per land area (approx. 4.75 km/sq km), is significantly lower than other metropolitan cities such as London (2 times denser at approx. 9.5 km/sq km), New York (2.5 times denser at approx. 12 km/sq km) and Tokyo (4 times denser at approx. 19 km/sq km). So how do we achieve a higher road density? By building multi-level roads and expressways, as Tokyo did. Presently, our roads and expressways are only single level for the most part. Just doubling the road level will ease traffic flow by half. Is there a downside to this? Well, some people may argue that multi-level roads and expressways are unsightly. However, this may be mitigated to some extent if properly planned, and besides, adding another level to an already existing expressway would not likely make it much worse.

The incumbent government, however, is unlikely to implement this approach for a simple reason – because building roads involves expending a large sum of money. In contrast, sticking to the status quo scheme of COEs and ERPs allows the government to collect a great deal of revenue – even though it does little to address the problem of over-congested roads.

Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile for the government to consider channelling the substantial funds amassed over the years from road related revenue (i.e. COEs, ERPs, road taxes etc.) towards building additional roads to ease traffic congestion and benefit the country. The use of road related funds for this purpose will ensure that there is no prejudice against taxpayers who do not drive.

The second way to deal with traffic congestion, is to reduce the number of cars. As highlighted above, the government attempts to do this by way of the COE quota system among others, with mixed success.

So how else can we reduce the number of cars? Well, we can make it expensive to own a car. Like, really expensive. Forget the COEs, the ERPs. Simply increase road tax to $10k a year just for the privilege of owning a car. Or an even higher sum, if necessary. The prohibitive cost alone will be certain to deter many from driving.

But lest this be thought an easy solution, there is one fundamental challenge associated with trying to reduce the number of cars. That is, the public transport infrastructure must be able to provide effectively for both present commuters and additional commuters who will no longer have access to private means of transport. Can the public transport infrastructure do this? Unfortunately, it appears that at present, the public transport system is already stretched beyond its limit, but that’s a whole story in itself for another day.

On PSLE math and the child

2009-10-21T17:28:00.007+08:00

The Primary School Leaving Examination (“PSLE”) is a major examination taken by all schoolchildren (aged about 12 years) at the end of their sixth year in primary school. It is widely regarded as an important examination because a child’s PSLE grades determine whether he or she would qualify to enter a desired secondary school of choice.

The PSLE comprises 4 subjects (English, mother tongue, math and science), and this year, many schoolchildren experienced difficulty with the math paper. In particular with this question:

“Jim bought some chocolates and gave half of it to Ken. Ken bought some sweets and gave half of it to Jim. Jim ate 12 sweets and Ken ate 18 chocolates. The ratio of Jim's sweets to chocolates became 1:7 and the ratio of Ken's sweets to chocolates became 1:4. How many sweets did Ken buy?”

Now, any good paper should contain at least one or two difficult questions so that we may distinguish the more able candidates. But difficult questions should be fair, and the issue is: is this a fair question that schoolchildren can reasonably solve within their ability? Put in another way, are the schoolchildren sitting for the paper equipped with the skills to solve this math question?

It is this author’s understanding that primary school teachers teach their students to solve such math questions using a model diagram and units method. However, a number of teachers privately admit that the model diagram and units method is difficult to comprehend and cumbersome to utilise, and that most schoolchildren are unable to master it.

Is this the only method to solve the math question? No. The math question is easily, commonly and elegantly solved using algebra and simultaneous equations. These are taught when a child enters secondary school education. They are not taught at the primary school level because algebra is perceived to be of a higher level math and most primary schoolchildren are not ready for it.

But it appears that the schools will generally only allow students to solve such math questions using the model diagram and units method. Any other solution (including algebraic solutions) will be penalised or discouraged.

Nonetheless, a good education system should be flexible, and a good educator should allow students to use any valid method to solve a question, not just one method. Schools ought not insist on a particular method to solve a question (especially if the method is cumbersome, will (in this author’s opinion) have little real world application, and confuses schoolchildren).

The crux is this: if primary schoolchildren are largely confused by the model diagram and units method and hence unable to cope with such math questions, they are evidently not equipped with the necessary skills to solve such questions and it would not be fair to expect them to do so. Why not focus instead on establishing a solid grounding in other more appropriate math topics within their level, and only test them on such math questions at a later stage when they are ready to handle them?

By the way, the answer to the math question (as worked out by this author using algebra and simultaneous equations), is 68. Did you get it right?

On EPL and fair competitive practices

2009-10-20T23:55:00.010+08:00

Earlier this month, SingTel snatched from StarHub the exclusive right to broadcast the English Premier League (“EPL”) matches in Singapore for the next three years. It did this by significantly outbidding the incumbent StarHub for the right.

EPL fans in Singapore quickly raised concerns as to whether the costs of watching EPL match telecasts would increase (such as, whether there will be additional costs in subscribing to a new provider, whether there will be additional costs in obtaining a new set-top box, and whether the pay-tv costs of subscribing for an EPL channel would go up in order for SingTel to recoup its bid cost). Several opinions were ventured on whether the government should step in to control pay-tv prices in this respect, and not a few expressed scepticism regarding SingTel’s assurances that the prices would not go higher than what subscribers are currently paying for EPL match telecasts via StarHub.

Objectively, EPL match telecasts are considered a luxury good rather than an essential need. Matters concerning the supply of such non-essential goods should generally be left to a free market to determine, and the government should not be unnecessarily concerned.

However, where an issue of unfair competition or abuse of monopoly power arises, the government should intervene to protect consumer interests (even for non-essential goods) as a matter of public policy. In this regard, the Competition Commission of Singapore (“CSS”) has been charged to ensure fair competitive practices in the Singapore markets and to safeguard consumer interests, in accordance with the Competition Act.

In the present EPL case, some competition issues which may merit consideration are:

If there are no meaningful substitute products for EPL matches, is it fair to allow multiple companies to bid for a single, exclusive distribution right to broadcast EPL matches?

If a person places an extraordinary bid to win exclusive EPL broadcast rights, and then subsequently uses its monopoly position to increase subscription prices in order to recoup its high bid cost and make profits, would such conduct amount to anti-competitive practices and an abuse of its monopoly power?

Incredibly, the government has prohibited the CCS from reviewing competition issues in the media sector, and hence the CCS cannot investigate any potential anti-competitive practices or monopoly abuses involving SingTel’s bid for the EPL match telecasts.

Why is there such a blanket prohibition, and is it justified? It may be conjectured that the original purpose behind the prohibition was to allow telcos, which are entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (i.e. services which are different from ordinary services in that public authorities consider they should be provided in all cases, whether or not there is sufficient economic incentive for the private sector to do so), to perform the task entrusted to them in economically unacceptable conditions.

However, can pay-tv (a luxury good) genuinely be considered as a service of general economic interest? Moreover, do pay-tv service providers indeed operate in economically unacceptable conditions in Singapore? The answers to these questions are likely, no. Given that the telcos in Singapore have long since been successfully privatised and ceased to be statutory boards, there does not seem to be any good reason as to why the CCS should not be given jurisdiction over the telcos (just as with any other company in Singapore) to prevent unfair competition and the abuse of dominant power. Conversely, it would likely be for the greater good of Singapore if the government were to rectify the laws to allow the CCS to look into competition issues in the media sector.

On making HDB housing affordable

2009-10-20T18:19:00.021+08:00

Singapore is a small country and the third most densely populated state in the world after Macau and Monaco. With a population of 5 million and barely 710 square kilometres of land area, the scarcity of land is acute and land planning is vital in order to maintain a decent quality of life for the people of Singapore.

The Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) is the official government body tasked to take on the issues of public housing in Singapore. Given the shortage of land, the HDB’s responsibility is no small one, and the HDB provides housing by building flats and leasing them out (in 99-year leases) to Singaporeans. More than 80 percent of Singaporeans currently live in these HDB flats. In recent times, however, many Singaporeans have expressed disgruntlement and dismay at how difficult it is to obtain a HDB flat, and how expensive it is.

Some relevant observations:

Flat prices have risen far more quickly over the years compared to salary increases (one commentator has estimated that flat prices have increased by more than 30 times since the 1970s, compared to a mere 2.7 times increase in the median salary of a graduate since the 1970s).

Many households today need to take long term (20 to 30 years) loans in order to afford their flat leases.

In recent years, fewer flats are being built. Yet the population has increased more rapidly than before.

New HDB flats are invariably many times oversubscribed, indicating that demand far exceeds supply.

These observations reveal that, from the face of it, there is a genuine concern that public housing today is not very affordable and not very available.

Two policies adopted by the HDB appear to aggravate the problem of public housing affordability and availability instead of alleviating it:

The HDB deliberately restricts the supply of flats below the demand level, thus reducing the number of available housing.

Since mid-1990s, the HDB prices new flats at the market rate instead of at the building cost, thus increasing flat prices and profiting from them.

It is indisputable that housing is an essential human need. If housing is unavailable or unaffordable to the people in Singapore, the HDB (as the government provider of public housing) should endeavour to build more flats and lower their prices (by reverting to the original and more reasonable cost-based pricing instead of a market-based pricing).

Can the HDB do this? Well, one fundamental concern is that if HDB flat prices revert to a cost-based approach, the tenants who had previously leased them at market rates and who are still living in the flats would be unfairly prejudiced and burdened with negative value assets. How can we address this concern?

What if (and let us think out of the box here and envisage a government who is serious in tackling the housing problem and who is open and willing to consider all options) what if the HDB were to refund its excess profits made from market-based leases back to the tenants who are still living in the flats? i.e., refund the difference between the market price and the cost price at the time of lease? The refunds may be made partly in CPF and partly in cash, depending on the actual proportions used to lease the respective flats at the time. Then there would be no prejudice to these tenants. The refunds will only apply to tenants who are still living in their flats. Previous tenants who have already sold off their HDB flat leases would have done so at market rates, and no refunds need to be provided to them since no negative equity losses will be suffered by them.

The mistake (dare we call it that?) of pegging HDB flat prices to the market rate could be corrected, and going forward, Singaporeans will be able to lease public housing at far more affordable cost prices.

Ideologically, the HDB, which is a statutory board entrusted with public housing, should not make a profit from Singapore citizens. After all, having a place to live is an essential need, and in land scarce Singapore where housing options are severely limited, Singaporeans should be entitled to public housing at affordable prices as a basic right.