Archive for April 2014

My workers are on a 38 hours work week award. Under the law here, an employer must not request or require an employee to work beyond their 38 hours unless the additional hours are "reasonable." How to determine if it is reasonable to ask a worker to work over-time? There is a list of factors to be taken into account, as I found out;

any risk to employee health and safety
the employee’s personal circumstances, including family responsibilities
the needs of the workplace or enterprise
whether the employee is entitled to receive overtime payments, penalty rates or other compensation for
(or a level of remuneration that reflects an expectation of ) working additional hours
any notice given by the employer to work the additional hours
any notice given by the employee of his or her intention to refuse to work the additional hours
the usual patterns of work in the industry
the nature of the employee’s role and the employee’s
level of responsibility
whether the additional hours are in accordance

As it goes, there are plenty of each party to argue for their cases. From the way I look at it, an employee here has a lot more rights behind them to say, 'No,' to being overworked. A simple, "I feel tired," or "I need to be at home to take care of the baby." would suffice with no questions asked, over-riding whatever crap such as the needs of the workplace and we'll be allowed to go with no repercussions. The employer will usually get their way when overtime payments is dished out because some of us wouldn't mind a bit more money in the pocket. Still they would have to ask nicely.

One of my workers came to me and posed a request. He suggested changing his 38 hours work week to a 40 hours work week so that he could earn a bit more. He was willing to be paid normal rates for that additional 2 hours, instead of the 1.5x wage he would otherwise be entitled to. He would effectively have an "increment" and the company would pay a lot lesser in the long run for those extra hours. It was a win-win situation, he felt.

I consulted the boss on that but to my surprise he rejected it flatly, stating that it was illegal to do so without going through some legal arrangement and he wouldn't want to go through the hassle so he would prefer to stick to the current award of the workers and rather pay overtime rates if the circumstances require of us. You have not read it wrong. Rather pay overtime rates. As we know, labour is expensive in Australia. That makes overtime rates even more painful than it is, for the employer at least. So why would the boss rather pay? Whatever the reasons, it dawned on me these deterring factors actually protects workers from being exploited the way I saw it happening from the country I came from where we had plenty of chances to work overtime due to "patterns of work," "needs of the workplace," or "the level of responsbility," but often with inadequate or no compensation, usually with little or no advance notice given as well. When I said advance, I mean in terms of days.

I saw the effects of overtime compensations first hand. The boss and office manager were always reluctant to ask the factory to work overtime unless absolute necessity. Numerous jobs were quoted with overtime charges in mind when we knew we had to stay behind to slog it out. We probably lost many jobs but we won a fair share as well because the competitors were unable or unwilling to work overtime for it. Slowly, we were making a name for ourselves for being quicker than the competitors, though not necessarily cheaper.

Though it was depressing that we didn't seem to expand, we could keep ourselves small, mobile and responsive. If we kept that up, we could find ourselves having more work than we could handle but that would be a happy problem. Compare that to an ever-expanding model. It is true that size reaps the benefits of the economy of scale but it also keeps the pressure of increasing the sales volume year on year, worse if a company gets listed because shareholders' thirst for ever increasing stock value or higher dividends are insatiable. I can't help but wonder on a macro scale, why should a small country take on the world like a big company instead of keeping ourselves so good, so responsive that we will still be relevant to the rest of the world. Although there has been a notion (which probably some truths in it as well) that hyper-marts are killing small businesses, small businesses are still popping up, surviving, some even flourishing. There is always a choice left. I don't believe there is only one way to go. At the rate we are deskilling and cheapening ourselves, it's a matter of time we became a tourism and vice hub, lots of money but no soul.

For more than 20 years of supporting this football club with noteworthy regular heart attacks along the way, I never felt that way watching a game like the last. Not even the wee hours fighting back from 3-0 down at HT on a famous night in 2005 came close. I remember telling the forumers a comeback would happen. Most must had thought I was insane but Liverpool went on to record one of the most stunning comebacks in Europe Cup history. When the euphoria died down, some forumers pointed out there was only a few among us who didn't shut off the television but I was the only one who was believed in a comeback. It wasn't that I am naturally a positive supporter. Those who knows me well enough knows how negative I have been going into games. I'm not sure that is a personality thing or I am too conditioned to my team failing. Perhaps a little of both. Despite a season of surprisingly consistent good performances by this Liverpool team, I went into almost every game fearing a bad result but they proved me wrong each time. Away grounds such as St Mary's, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane, Britannia and the Stadium of Light, grounds where we'll come back with nothing every season, exceeded my expectations and returned a maximum of 15 points.

The Champions League final in 2005 was an exceptional one where I felt positive going into the game. That didn't mean I wasn't reduced to a nervous wreck during every minute of the game. The game against Man City last night felt like deju vu. I made a rare prediction of 4-2 win to my close friends because I had that 'feeling'. Despite the belief that my team would win a tremendously strong opponent, I felt nervous all week just that that week in May.

Non-Liverpool fans would sneer at that. After all, it was just another big game season in, season out. But it wasn't and most real Liverpool fans would know. It was the 25th Anniversary of Hillsborough, the tragic event that made me a Liverpool supporter with the way the club, fans and everyone associated with it came together and support one another through the dark times. Then, there was the relentless seek for justice for the victims of the disasters for 25 damn years. How many of us would have persevere for a cause that long? The club never stopped supporting the movement and finally forced new inquests into the case. Throughout the years, fans of the club had to put up with degrading labels of rival fans such as 'Loserpool' or the mocking of our mantra of 'I'll rather walk alone' but that was just banter, albeit tasteless. The supporters in Anfield having to endure the chants of 'Murderers' in the stands for years is another thing of its own, that is as low as rival fan can get. The club and people deserves closure from Hillsborough, much as they deserve justice.

Many neutral fans are won over by the attractive style Liverpool is playing this season. Along with the fact that Steven Gerrard, who have carried the club for years, the sentiment of the neutrals is that if there is any justice left in football, let Liverpool FC wins the title this season, just for Gerrard if not anything else. But league titles are not won by sentiments, romanticism or the most goals scored by a team. They are won by the best teams with the most points at the end of the season. If this Liverpool team is not the best in the league, let the deserving one win it. In my bias opinion, this Liverpool team has what it takes to win it. I have never watch my team win a league title before so I don't really know what it takes but I'm backing the bid simply because of the fact I have never witnessed this level of team spirit in any Liverpool teams I've watched. That is special to me and hopefully that is the missing piece of the puzzle to take us all the way - the willingness to fight for one another.

Steven Gerrard shed tears of joy and relief last night. A friend called him a crybaby. In truth, I had tears welling the same, twice. Once during the minute of silence, when the camera panned across the backs of the Liverpool team, with the JFT96 mosaic clearly in view. That game meant so much, so much. It was more than a game or a potential title decider. Deep inside, I applauded the visiting Manchester City fans for their class, respecting the occasion by not singing or chanting during that minute, unlike their red counterparts or the London plastic blues. Liverpool fans in the stands would have given their Man City fans their hugs for that alone. But when the minute was up, it was WAR. Liverpool fought for their lives and so did Man City. Neither team deserved to lose. I wouldn't say the better team won, rather the hungrier one. When crybaby Gerrard huddled his young team, my eyes reacted the same. The team reacted like they had won the World Cup yet nothing was won yet and Gerrard quickly reminded them that but it was apparent for anyone watching, that was the team who wanted it more from the game.

My buddy chose Martin Skrtel as the MOTM, having scored an important goal and defending well against the lethal Manchester City attacks. My MOTM however, was Coutinho. Since the little Brazilian joined us, he has been a revelation. I would go as far to say Coutinho is the missing player who would have won us the league title in that 2009 team. I couldn't believe a player of such calibre came to us at only £8.5 million pounds. At only 21 years of age, Coutinho is loaded with potential to be an even better player than he is. Throughout the game last night, he hustled, tackled and worked tremendously hard in defence and was breathtaking skipping past players in attack. He was eventually rewarded with a peach of a match winning goal, set up beautifully by Vincent Kompany, of course. I can't believe Coutinho is not even picked for the Brazil World Cup squad whereas the likes of Willian and Oscar made it.

10 successive wins on the trot. I couldn't remember when was the last time I saw a Liverpool team did that, if it ever happened during my watch. It wasn't enough to take us to promised land though. In fact, it appears that we will need to break a Premier League successive wins record to win the title, a mammoth task to ask from any team, much less an inexperienced Liverpool team only aiming to get back into the Champions League in the beginning of the season. Moreover, 10 games ago, the table looked like this:

1	Arsenal	24	17	4	3	26	55
2	Manchester City	23	17	2	4	42	53
3	Chelsea	23	15	5	3	23	50
4	Liverpool	24	14	5	5	29	47

So it is still anyone's guess who will be the eventual winner of the season with 4 more games left, 12 points at stake. I'm not convinced Liverpool has done enough to win it but we certainly deserve to be where we are at this stage. For one, we have yet to beat Chelsea this season. To be the best, we have to beat the closest contenders at least once to compliment the fast-track bullying over the rest. There are a lot more work to be done and I believe Brenden Rodgers and his team are putting their best feet forward.

I found so many closet Liverpool fans among my friends through this game. Throughout my life, I've been surrounded by Manchester United fans. Imagine there was only a Liverpool supporter besides me in my whole company during National Service. They Mancs aren't havin it good this season. Hopefully my Man United fans would have a chance to justify their claims that they would support their club all the way even if they get relegated. It is easy to be a supporter when you are winning things but no so when you're not, they'll find out. Compare to these folks, who enjoyed success for the last 2 decades, it isn't easy to be a Liverpool fan. It has been 24 years since we won a league title, though occasional cups ease the pain along the way. Just barely a few years back, we were playing like Wimbledon of the yester-years under Roy Hodgson. Then we were so close to oblivion, to go into administration like Leeds United, who has failed to make their way back to the Premiership since. No club of any stature is exempted from a permanent fall from grace after years of gross mismanagement behind the scenes. The complete turnaround in fortunes in such a short time is a reward good enough for any Liverpool fan. A taste of a title win is unimaginable, even for the most optimistic. Though we are so close, there is always the possibility of falling short once again.

Only 4 games to go. 4 Cup Finals, including playing Chelsea at Anfield. Every game is a must-win.

Regardless of the outcome, I'm grateful to have the privilege of being part of the ride.

Regardless of the outcome, we'll walk on. Hopefully this time, skipping a little.

I didn't sign on the petition to close down STOMP but there were adequate Singaporeans who did just that to force a response from the MDA as of the following,

You may be aware of an ongoing petition to shut down STOMP. While it is not for MDA to influence the editorial slant of sites, we would, as the media regulator of Singapore, take firm action if any Internet content provider is in breach of the Internet Code of Practice. These typically cover content that is against public interest and/or content that promotes racial and religious hatred or intolerance.

“As users of the Internet and as part of our efforts to promote responsible online behaviour, netizens can and should continue signalling to content providers the standards that we expect of them, so that they can in turn heed these calls. Should you believe that STOMP, together with other class-licensed and individually licensed sites merit stronger regulation, we invite you to propose how the standards should be tightened.

“Let’s build a healthy online environment together.”

Basically, what the MDA said was 'No! And fart off,' and even went on to invite potential morons to sharpen the knife to be used for butchering themselves in the future. No doubt, there would be enough that to fall for it. Hook, line and sinker. Once the MDA has a 'better' regulating framework assembled by yourselves, it would be applied towards STOMP (as if they really care) as well as any other websites you prefer to survive and that probably included the websites belonging to the same people who rallied for STOMP to be closed down. To me, it's clear as the sky who stands to benefit most from this. In fact, I wondered for a few seconds if that post was put up on purpose, and the website was petitioned to be closed down by themselves. 自导自演自爽

That suggestion might be far fetched but it has been that easy when it comes to Singaporeans. We just need to get a couple of people to toilet-rush to campaign for all 'illegal' street hawkers to be exterminated, constantly show how evil are 'illegal' gambling dens in our drama serials so as to magically turn the same unhygienic or evil people suddenly clean if they are willing to yield to the right people. Better yet, a few old men going for China boobs with retirement money to freeze out the CPF account for generations of Singaporeans later. The rule is: -You don't give them an excuse. But Singaporeans never learn.

I don't mean that regulation is a bad thing. Sure, it is good. At any level, at any cost, some may argue: to an extent a local child grows up without developing the spatial ability to cross a busy road without the aid of a pedestrian crossing or judgement of which a particular overseas street hawker to avoid without the 'D' label clearly displayed over the counter. In the olden days, without vast regulations or the internet, people knew which hawker they shouldn't patronize, which street should be avoided at night at all cost or which tree had the best durians to be pick from. Today, we need reviews and now, we need someone to close down a site which we swore never to go back to anyway. Some of us would close down SMRT if they would have their way, despite the fact that they drive and don't use their outrageously poor service of late, at all.

At the end of the day, it is apparent to me that STOMP's competitors will be rubbing their hands in anticipation. So would the MDA, checking their nets every minute for the big catch. I wonder how many people who signed the petition actually know. "Let's build a healthy online environment together." I'm going to cringe till Winter.

Source

One of the hottest topics among overseas Singaporeans is dual citizenship. It is "common knowledge" that Singaporeans are not allowed to hold dual citizenships. So naturally, most of us would come to assume that no Singaporean holds a dual citizenship. Ah, that Singaporean mind.

Using PM Lee Hsien Loong as an example, the picture (left) was posted on his Facebook fan page, proudly declared him as a Citizen of London. I'll have to be honest here - I cannot be awfully sure if a Citizen of London is the same as a Citizen of England, UK, Britain or whatever that is relevant but it probably doesn't matter anyway and I'll explain that to you later on. But if you are thinking what I'm thinking, viola! A Singaporean with dual citizenship.

If you don't get the point, I'll put it in another way. In Singapore, we are not allowed to litter. But you've gotta be a fool to think there are no Singaporean litterbugs just because there is a law that punishes one for the act.

I believe 99% of the overseas Singaporeans have never given this much of a thought, much less looking into the Constitution. For your benefit, here is line you may want to read

“Deprivation of citizenship on acquisition of foreign citizenship (source)

134.

—(1) The Government may by order deprive a citizen of Singapore of his citizenship if the Government is satisfied that —

(a)

he has, while of or over the age of 18 years, at any time after 6th April 1960 acquired by registration, naturalisation or other voluntary and formal act (other than marriage) the citizenship of any country outside Singapore or having so acquired such citizenship before the age of 18 years continues to retain it after that age; or

(b)

the citizen, being a woman who is a citizen of Singapore by registration under Article 123(2), has acquired the citizenship of any country outside Singapore by virtue of her marriage to a person who is not a citizen of Singapore.

(2) Where the Government has made an order under this Article depriving a citizen of Singapore of his citizenship, he shall cease to be a citizen with effect from the date of the order.

Not that anyone will actually make the futile effort to put up a request to the Government to revoke PM Lee's Singaporean citizenship, the Government cannot do do under the Constitution anyway because he was not granted a foreign citizenship under any of the circumstances listed. (He didn't register, wasn't naturalised and could even argue it wasn't voluntary.) Furthermore, most people ignore or perhaps just unaware of the most important line of this Constitution, "Where the Government has made an order under this Article depriving a citizen of Singapore of his citizenship, he shall cease to be a citizen with effect from the date of the order."

We have to know the mechanism behind the scenes to understand the effect of the line. The Government has no right to deprive a Singaporean of his citizenship prior to him getting his foreign citizenship, even if they know he has the intention or in the midst of applying for one. So at some point of time, (let it be T) a Singaporean will be a dual citizen until the Singapore Government makes an order against him under the Article. However, T is not specified. So T can be 100 days, 1 year, 10 years or never at all - that is if the Singapore Government makes an order against the Singaporean at all. We tend to forget that is an option to exercise, not necessarily a default.

Many overseas Singaporeans tend to mix up the situation between ex-Singaporeans withdrawal of their CPF and being deprived of their Singaporean citizenship by order from the Government. To withdraw your CPF, the only requirement is the renunciation of your Singapore citizenship and the requirement to renounce is the acquiring of a citizenship in another country. In such a situation, it is a voluntary renunciation, not an order by the Government under the Article.

So what happens if a Singaporean acquires dual citizenship but chooses not to withdraw his CPF? I cannot find any information on Government websites which explicitly states it is an offence to hold a dual citizenship and anyone who does has to declare it to the Government within x number of days. (I'm not a google geek so if such a law exist, I'll appreciate if you can provide me the link for update). I have absolutely no doubt many Singaporeans like that exists because there is little or no benefit (and we know how they work) for the Singapore Government to exercise the order against them even if it exists. In fact, the current PM even bothered to set up a special unit under the PMO called Overseas Singaporeans Unit (OSU) with wooing ex-Singaporeans back to Singapore as one of its core missions. Why would the Government then, stir up a placid lake if the ordinary Singaporean doesn't make a request to renounce his citizenship? Unless your name is Chee Soon Juan, perhaps.

It was just a casual goodbye from the glassman when I made my way to the car. "Busy week?" I asked. The glassman nodded. Like us, the glassman had a very quiet Summer but the hiatus had since seemed to give way to a mad rush of last minute jobs. Another year of employment for me perhaps, until the next update but it was too early to tell at only the beginning of the 2nd quarter of the year.

I pointed at the ute that the glassman used to transport his glass. It was a specially made one, with racks and clamps extended at both sides of its flanks to hold glass. That would never be approved by the LTA to go on Singapore roads, though it had been used for at least a generation on Australian roads without dramas. He seemed eager to tell me more about his trade so I listened. Since I knew a bit about glass, having the experience of handling a project that involved the installation of shopfront glass along a 540m stretch of the MBS podium, it wasn't difficult to pretend I knew what he was talking about. As usual, I asked and kept asking about the glassman and his business, without revealing much about myself, not that he was interested anyway.

The glassman, Italian by birth, grew up and spent most of his life in South Africa, was an one-man operation. He told me over time he trained himself to lift a panel up to 60kg. A mean feat, he reckoned, for an accountant by training. So why did he dump his accountant jobs to be a glass supplier? The glassman told me he bought the business when he came over from South Africa. Being an accountant, he claimed he was able to differentiate good deals from bad ones. The glass company seemed to fit the bill and he bought it and had been self employed since. He supplied to contractors mainly for the construction of swimming pool railings. He had neither the space nor capabilities to expand his product range and was happy with how things were going. That was new for someone who came from an environment where every owner of a business was thinking how to expand and make more money.

Though small businesses like that are dying out in Perth, there are still plenty of them at the moment. It's always interesting knowing more about how people make their living here that I never knew possible. According to Cedric, there are people who makes their living by owning lobster pots out there. There are so, so many options and opportunities out here that I'm still learning something new every week but then the next guy emails me and ask me how to find a job in Australia. I wondered if there has been any business deal done in history without both parties meeting and dishing out their terms. Except for Ferguson's purchase of Bebe perhaps. I believe a job search is a similar situation. You've gotta be here to present your deal, if you want to be taken seriously. If we cannot grasp this simple concept, what good will other job hunting tips do for you?

Fortunately they announced it on the news website on the 2nd of April so the people wouldn't mistaken it for an April Fool's joke. Still, it was a good laugh reading how Grace Fu thought giving newborns from 2015, termed Golden Jubilee Babies, a sarong with a motif of the Singapore flag was something of "great significance".

Fair play to them for aiming to present a gift which does not involved money. I sure hope the company awarded the contract to manufacture these sarongs with the Singapore flag motif on is not linked to the government in any way. If so, I hope we'll never come to know how Singaporeans paid the most expensive sarong in the world with their tax. Well, on the bright side, spending an additional cost to add the Singapore flag on the sarong seems to be a brilliant idea. At least it should deter even the most hardcore anti-government citizens not to dump the sarong straight into the bin. That will a ugly sight if it appears on STOMP.

On the brighter side, Grace Fu's dim idea would be likely shadowed by another suggestion from the "public." If you think you have a better idea than Grace Fu, you can submit your suggestion here. Be sure to be as creative as you can. For eg, a baby underwear with a motif of the Singapore flag on it. That's certainly cheaper and more popular than a sarong that much lesser young couples these days don't use. Just be careful to keep the motif out of the strategic zones. You don't want your Golden Jubilee Baby to soil our state flag by mistake, not that a sarong is completely immune by it, really. Don't let that discourage you from submitting your inferior ideas though, you may just beat this one by luck. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we will not end up spending $0.5 million dollars for this National Brainstorm, like we did renaming Marina Bay, Marina Bay.

I like the term Golden Jubilee Babies. It seems like Singapore is ready for a fresh new start. I wondered what they called my generation 3 decades back. Our new name must be "The failed generation," since our leaders are telling us that foreigners are better than us on every opportunities. Hopefully our failed social experiments gave the Government enough lessons to learn from mistakes and create a golden wealth-generating generation and give the Government more reasons for their jubilees.

There are parents who feel giving money or its equivalence is more practical than sending cheesy gifts. Maybe it's true since milk powder does not rain from the sky. However a portion of the masses are insatiable and will ask for the sky even if they receive periodic money showers, so I don't think giving a gift from a past generation to the next that involves no money isn't a bad thing. Having said that, a gift of great significance should involve thinking, a bit more deeper than sarongs with flag motifs, which you may expect more from a supposedly greater mind.

What does a parent really want to give to his or her child? One of them should be hope. The assurances to our next generation that bringing them up in this country is not a mistake, that they will be included and accepted in society regardless or who and what they are in a sustainable manner. From the ridiculous amount of emails I've been receiving about migration (mainly from parents, as pointed out by a friend), and conversations with parents who actually moved here, I cannot help but feel more parents are seeing only despair on the horizon for the futures of their children. From the way the trend is bending towards, it appears we can only hope for hope for the Golden Jubilee Babies. Perhaps a sarong with a motif of a flag may provide them comfort during the darker nights after all.

A Singaporean In Australia

Past Rants