On the NETS fee hike

Nets, or Network for Electronic Transfers, is raising its transaction fees for retailers in three batches starting July 1 - the timing of which has also come under fire because it coincides with the 2 per cent goods and services tax hike.

Now, isn't this smart? Raise the fees together with the GST increase and the resulting increase in prices can be 'hidden' or explained away as: its due to the GST! It's due to retail merchants profiteering on the GST!

Seriously, NETS is just another profiteering monopolist profiteering from the GST hike. And we are not talking about a small increase here, it is an up to 300% increase!

The rates will go up from the current 0.35 and 0.55 per cent of purchases to between 1.5 per cent and 1.9 per cent - this represents an up to three-fold increase in the amount merchants will have to pay for each transaction.

And in the land of competition of Singapore, where commercial viability is oft cited as justification of government, GLCs, private businesses, we see it in this issue again:

Chief executive officer Poh Mui Hoon said the system will be squeezed out of the market if it does not raise its rates: 'It is a tough but commercial decision that we have to make. We haven't raised rates for 22 years, it has to be done.'

But excuse me?! NETS is not charging a flat fee in the first place, but instead it is a percentage fee. We have always heard that companies cutting costs, cutting prices to maintain competitiveness and commercial viability, and calls for workers to accept lower wages to ensure our competitiveness with the cheaper China/India/SEA workers. But in the case of NETS it is a monopoly RAISING rates to prevent it being SQUEEZED out of the market???

What a way to turn competitiveness (This term was actually used in zaobao as justification for the hike) and commercial viability on its head.

And since they talk about the competition being strong, let's look at who is behind NETS and who are their competitors.

Nets, which is owned by DBS Bank, OCBC Bank and United Overseas Bank...

Banks, she said, have been aggressively promoting and issuing debit cards because they get more money each time these cards are used. Each transaction with a debit or credit card earns the bank between 1.15 and 1.69 per cent of the purchase price.

Now now, it seems that their 'competitors' are actually themselves, as the 3 major banks in singapore most probably have the largest debit/credit card market share here. Except in the case of debit/credit card, the international card company(VISA/Mastercard etc) takes a share of the fee.

Compare the NETS after hike rates of "between 1.5 per cent and 1.9 per cent" to the 1.15-1.69 percent of debit/credit cards... Now we really see what this competiveness/commercial 'viability' really means.

After this hike, NETS would most probably be just as expensive to use as credit/debit cards, and if this is the case, I see no point in using NETS anymore. NETS does not offer the consumer any reward points/discounts, it does a direct debit the moment the transaction takes place (as opposed to debit cards where the money is deducted a few days after), it has a lower charging limit (of $2000, if I remember correctly), and now it is more expensive.

So much for a cashless society, and not to mention the biggest group of people that will be ripped off are those older people who have no knowledge/access to debit/credit cards.

I do hope CASE's complaint does go through, but given the Singaporean system I am not optimistic.

Source: Case slams Nets fee hike as a 'great disservice'

Maid bosses' greatest fear ...

I read this letter on today online today, and I am rather disgusted with it, not to mention the illogicality of the arguments. My comments are after the end of the letter.

MAID BOSSES' GREATEST FEAR ...

Friday March 17, 2006

If helpers get pregnant, employers will have to forfeit $5,000 bond

Letter from Theresa Ee

I wonder if readers who are disappointed with domestic maids not being
given official backing for rest days have ever been emotionally and
financially abused by them.

In his letter, Heng Cho Choon ("Caring for elderly needs special
training", March 16) commented that the practice by some employers to
forbid their domestic workers from talking to other maids is akin to
solitary confinement.

He goes on to say that by the same token, we might as well confine our
children too if we don't want them to pick up wayward ways in school. I
would like to point out that, as parents, we are able to discipline our
children. However with maids, we run the possibilities of them taking
revenge by polluting our food and water, abusing our children, requesting
for transfers or simply crying rape/abuse and putting us behind bars.

The Government imposes a $5,000 bond on employers to ensure the well-being
of our maids.

Most employers' greatest fear is their maids getting pregnant, in which
case they will have to repatriate them and forfeit the $5,000 bond.
Besides throwing away good money for someone's irresponsible behaviour,
routines will be inconvenienced.

Recently, I visited my gynaecologist at a medical centre. To my shock, I
was asked if I could allow several maids waiting for their abortion
procedures to go first as their employers would be returning home soon. So
much about granting them freedom!

So, please stop accusing employers who are reluctant to grant domestic
workers that rest day as being inhuman. We are protecting their interests
in the long run.

Target the small minority who abuse the system, not the majority of us who
believe in human rights.
Firstly I do agree with Heng Cho Choon that forbiding a maid from talking to other maids is akin to solitary confinement. I can't imagine working all alone by myself in a foreign land, and denied of any relaxation time on my own, denied of my familiar social circle even though they are just around me all the time(which in my opinion is crucial to a person's mental well being, especially in situations where you have little control over your own life).
I haven't read Heng's original letter, but the analogy with disciplining our children seems apt.

Now for Theresa's rebuttal: "I would like to point out that, as parents, we are able to discipline our children. However with maids, we run the possibilities of them taking
revenge by polluting our food and water, abusing our children, requesting
for transfers or simply crying rape/abuse and putting us behind bars."

Actually as a matter of fact I would think with children we will run the same possibility of that happening as well. Can't your child pollute your food and water? A child can also cry rape/abuse. As a disclaimer, for 'child' I am referring to a wider age group of like from 10-21, where they are very much capable of the same thing, *if* the parents treat them in the same manner they treat the maid. After all we have heard of stories of teenagers injuring/killing parents, stealing money, etc etc.
And as the 'curfew' for teenagers is a hot topic out there for discussion, does confining your children at home all the time, having absolute control over who they talk to, where they go, whatever they do, directing their lives all the time ensure the 'well being' of your children?

Now for what I think is the crux of Theresa's argument: "The Government imposes a $5,000 bond on employers to ensure the well-being of our maids." And what does this 'well being' means? Basically anything that does not causes your $5000 bond to be confiscated and its through none of the employer's fault but rather the maid's "irresponsible behaviour," And as the logic goes, by barring the maid from going out and interacting with other maids and MALES, "we are protecting their interests in the long run", for they won't get into any trouble(as defined by the $5000).

Even more astounding is the final statement "Target the small minority who abuse the system, not the majority of us who believe in human rights.". I wonder if Theresa believes in human rights? Maybe she does, as long as the human rights does not incur a cost of $5000 SGD.

By the way, I wonder who came up with the sub header for the letter. I doubt its Theresa herself hahaha.....

Adulthood in SG is 22 years old

A semi rant here...

The supposed legal age for adulthood in Singapore is 21 years old, and I am supposed to be an adult now(my 21st birthday was in Jan). While most institutions(like banks, cinemas) will recognise it, our government who sets the legal age DOES NOT!

First it was the ineligibilty to vote in the upcoming elections(well if there is a opposition contesting in my GRC, and I won't know what constituency/GRC my family would fall under until the boundaries are decided upon), and now its the PROGRESS package.
To quote the release: "Individuals must be 21 years or above as of 31 December last year to get the Growth Dividends, and at least 50 years old to qualify for the CPF top-ups."
Which means if you are born in 1985 even though you may be celebrating(or have celebrated) your 21st bday, there's nothing to celebrate about for the new and upcoming budget's PROGRESS.

It's rather ironical that many guys my age are almost through with the army, having gone through what 'separates the men from the boys', handling firearms, leading men(in the case of officers and specs),making decisions that really matter to(like whether to charge/defend their men(who are usually older) for AWOL/drug abuse etc, and yet are still not considered adult.

Low Cost Terminal Naming Contest

The judges for this contest must have been through such a tough decision making process in awarding the $2000 and 3G mobile phone...

Singapore's first low-cost terminal named and ready for take-off in March

SINGAPORE'S first budget terminal has been named — what else? — the Budget Terminal.

Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong presented the winner of the "Low Cost Terminal Naming Contest" — 15-year-old Jonathan Sng of St Andrew's Secondary School — with a StarHub-sponsored cash prize of $2,000 and a 3G mobile phone, during a site inspection of the completed airport yesterday.

While 44 of the 12,000 or so entries had suggested "Budget Terminal", it was Jonathan's justification for the name — "short, easy to remember and representative of what the terminal is" — that clinched him the award, said the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS).

Other suggestions submitted during the three-month contest period included "Funport", "Seabreeze Terminal", "Oasis Terminal" and "Orchid Air Terminal".

Naming the no-frills airport was a no-brainer for Jonathan, who told Today he thought of it over a few minutes during recess.

Read the rest of the article from TODAY here (It's real!)

In my opinion this is an excellent summary of the NKF saga so far. Taken from Singapore Window, and you can visit the writer's site at Littlespeck.

NKF issue raising questions
on long-standing policies

Star, Malaysia
December 25, 2005

Insight Down South By Seah Chiang Nee

AFTER months of investigation during which erased computer data was recovered and files guarded to prevent being removed, the report on Singapore’s biggest scandal in years is finally out.

It showed things were worse than at first believed.

The 332-page KPMG Report on the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) unveiled an unethical and lavish use of public charity money – possibly even criminal offences – by its CEO T.T. Durai.

(He and the whole board of directors had resigned en masse and a new team has taken over.)

The details shocked the people, who had long been led to believe that such practices might happen in other countries but not in squeaky-clean Singapore.

After all, the biggest charity body had operated public-donated funds in excess of S$200m (RM444.9mil) raised with government patronage to perform a national function.

Mrs Goh Chock Tong was the Patron and political leaders helped in the fundraising so, people reasoned, how could their money not be safe.

The revelation has shaken the fabric of public confidence on official transparency. Government ministers and other ruling party figures had, until very recently, endorsed and praised Durai’s ability to raise so much money.

Most of the anger is directed at Durai and several executives and the board, which had given him a free hand to do as he liked.

Because of the link, the crisis had rubbed off on the government, which is blamed for poor judgment and dereliction of duty as a watchdog of a body that handles so much public money.

Two out of every three Singaporeans have contributed to NKF, including many lowly-paid workers who pledge monthly contributions from their pay.

They’ve become bitter and distrusting because they’ve just learned that only 10 cents of every S$1 (RM2.22) of their donations was spent on the patients, not 51% as Durai had told them.

The number of beneficiaries and amount of their subsidies were inflated.

Durai last earned an annual salary of S$300,000 (RM667,300) but was also raking in a large fortune during his tenure by regularly paying himself, through creative accounting, overtime pay, converted leave and bonuses – backdated. In 16 months before leaving, he had made 16 overseas trips on first class tickets.

His executives, especially two lady directors, came in for special treatment. One of them had several pay increases a year, barely one or two months after the previous one.

The KPGM Report is so voluminous that it would take weeks for Singaporeans to digest everything but as the details spread, so did the bitterness.

Some grassroots workers fear the repercussion may have a negative impact on the ruling People’s Action Party during the coming elections, widely expected in the first quarter of next year.

A day after the KPMG report, Minister of Health Khaw Boon Wan held a press conference to give the government’s response.

The authorities were investigating to decide if anyone could be charged in court, he said, pledging the full extent of the law with no cover-up.

The actions of Durai and the board were ‘disappointing’, he added. “We now know that we all have been misled.”

Unsmiling and sombre-looking, Khaw admitted the government “had failed” to perform its watchdog role and stop the rot despite receiving informal and anonymous complaints over the years.

The straightforward, no holds-barred revelation of the Report had regained some of the government's standing with the public. It required political courage. It could have been released after the polls.

One writer commented, “Khaw spoke with sincerity and honesty. He addressed the issue straight in the face and not evade it. Salute!”

The people are far from being placated. Whether the NKF saga would have lasting damage would depend on whether the perpetrators are prosecuted.

“If after all this no one is punished, justice will suffer. People will always think that offenders are protected,” a forummer exclaimed. “If everyone goes free, no one will contribute to charity again.”

How many other NKFs are there, and what is being done to expose them? Khaw said the government watchdog role would be strengthened by legislative amendments.

Predictably, the issue has also raised questions on a couple of longstanding policies.

One involves the absence of an independent check and balance structure, which exists in other developed countries in the forms of a strong opposition and an independent media, not available here.

The PAP has always said Singapore doesn’t need either of them to play the role. It says an honest government is its best watchdog against wrongdoing. The NKF fiasco questions how effective this can work over the long term.

Secondly, it calls into question Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s argument that high government salaries would prevent corruption. His rationale is that if a person is very well paid, he will not be tempted by greed.

While Durai has not been charged with corruption, his high pay had not kept him away from acquiring more even if it’s from the charity basket.