TR EMERITUS

TRE was notified of residents' complaints with regard to poor workmanship and defects found in new HDB BTO flats in Anchorvale Horizon at Seng Kang. Residents who received their keys recently were unhappy with the poor workmanship and finishing of their flats. Some have expressed their dissatisfaction on Anchorvale Horizon Facebook page [Link]: Jolin Chan Almost i month to repair the defect but till date still have a lot of problem not settle. Try to call Ms Jenny many times her reply is I'll check with my supervisor call you back tomorrow ( but never called back just like a Taiwan group singer 动力火车。。。明天的明天。。。。) how how how...if they have not settle we cannot start renovation? Can anyone help..... Thks Tan Lay Beng Hi, i'm stay at 327b my unit have a very poor workmanship at living and bedroom flooring....who can i look for help other than looking for BSC...anyone can help? Zhou Jun Wei See the same issue here. very bad defects Calvin Yap Hi, my unit is at blk 326D. HDB is currently addressing the defects for my units. It has been 2 whole weeks. May I know how long more would you take? I really need to get my renovation started soon! Please get back to me regarding this. Thank you. Zulianita Z. Radzi Mine repaired.. But after the re-work, it became worse... sigh... Noorizharfan Lizhafir Better press them hard! They sleeping on the job! 2weeks still not done with the repairs! Tan Yong Hong Noorizharfan Lizhafir, Mine already 3 mths and still a lot not repaired. It was so bad that the grassroots leaders at Anchorvale Horizon were themselves complaining too: (BSC - Building Service Centre, after service provided by the construction company to rectify all defects) The grassroots leaders even roped in Seng Kang West MP Lam Pin Min to visit Anchorvale Horizon just to show him how terrible the defects are: On the Facebook page of Anchorvale Harvest [Link], another HDB BTO project in the vicinity of Anchorvale Horizon, someone shared a photo of a HDB unit of Anchorvale Horizon: A netizen posted this comment on Anchorvale Harvest Facebook page: Cheoh Boo: I guess it depends on luck. I'm from Anchorvale Horizon n my unit is one of the few who have very minimal defect. But blardi bsc took so long to rectify even the smallest of defects that what could be rectified in 2 weeks took over a mth. But some of my neighbors didn't have it lucky though. Theirs had alot of defects that u can't just close an eye to. Some are (from those I spoke to or went to their unit to help check on defects): 1) svc yard door came off the frame 2) rusty nail sticking out from the corner of a skirting (and that neighbor had 2 young toddlers btw) 3) uneven bumpy floors (extremely common defect) 4) one couple who just got their key went to open the door to their new unit only to have the key stuck in the keyhole and key snapped off. I guess all this is see heng or suay one. Oh yes, u can submit yr defect form even after the so called 1 week given time. And u can submit multiple times even mths after as long as before reno. We submitted our defects at least 5 or more times cos some defects don't show thru on first visual inspection HDB playing "tai-chi" and trying to wear down the complainers, despite MP's intervention Another new resident was so fed-up with the defects in his HDB unit as well as his dealings with HDB that he wrote a long complaint letter and posted online: "I hope these can be shared to all Singaporeans since some facts are actually hidden by the authorities. Government kept emphasizing on Cheap and Quality housings for Singaporeans, but HDB as one of their main channel to carry out the mission does not follow. Please see photographs attached, these are the kind of Quality HDB is providing to Anchorvale Horizon residents. We understand even with 100% checks done, there ought to be defects but as you can see, those are really not acceptable. And every flat owner actually paid HDB for the inspection. But it seems like HDB is collecting the money and doing nothing. Please do not misunderstand that I am complaining for my personal benefits, I am writing in the hope that these can be shared so that all Singaporeans can have their rightfully deserved housings for the high amount they paid for. I had bought a flat in Anchorvale Horizon, a premium BTO unit which cost about $320+K excluding HDB loan of about another $100K. Understanding from HDB personnel, Premium BTO came with flooring done and charged to the flat as a whole. And owners are not allowed to opt out for the flooring. Thus we had no choice but to leave the flooring job to HDB. Our nightmares started when we got our keys to our unit, there are many defects which could not be squeezed into the defect reporting form HDB provided. Our living flooring is terribly done; edges of almost all tiles are not even and they even have rough edges that might cut our feet. When reporting them to the contractor (from China, Jing Ye), they turned defensive mentioning they are following guideline provided by HDB. If we are like some other not highly educated Singaporeans, or those who do not know what they can fight for, we might had unwillingly accept the flooring. But I think that is not right for us to keep quiet and accept them. Thus, I requested for joint inspection with the presence of HDB personnel. BSC, the unit that help us coordinate the defect reworks, told us on the following week that HDB personnel will go down to check before arranging the joint inspection. My wife and I had marked all the defects except the living room flooring for reporting. But on the day of the joint inspection, I was surprised that there are markings on the floor with the word "uneven" on them. And best of all, even with them on which were marked by either the contractor or HDB, the HDB personnel denied that it was neither their contractor's fault nor HDB's. And they tried to cover themselves, claiming the flooring is acceptable according to 'Industrial practice' and they are under 'tolerances'. And he added "but we will try to rectify it for you". That is very contradicting, why would they marked my flooring with the 'uneven' wordings and still insist that the flooring is okay. He seems like trying his luck to smoke us. I believe some of our neighbors might have been told off just like this. But he can sense our unhappiness and knew we would escalate further. So they decide to hack away the existing flooring and re-lay them. Results are still the same. After 5-6 times of rectifications, there is no improvement in the flooring. And every meeting takes place on weekdays which we had to took vacation leaves just to compromise to the HDB personnel's working timing. And the frustrating part is at every meeting, HDB personnel would use the same excuse to try convince us to accept the flooring. And if we do not accept, he would tell us he will ask the contractors to rework again. I found it weird that no matter how lousy someone's workmanship is, they will not keep repeating the same mistake unless they are real idiots. Thus I took out the spare tile that HDB gave to take a look. I was amazed that the tiles can rock on the flooring. Then I understand not only the workmanship has problem, the tiles have defects themselves. The tile itself is uneven with some area popping up and yet that HDB personnel kept trying his luck to tell us off. This is a terrible integrity issue and I became very disappointed with HDB. I thought maybe it is just that person, so I decided to give them another chance by escalating the issues to higher authorities in HDB. Ironically, they refused to handle it and diverted the emails back to that same guy. Thus I escalated it to our MP and he agreed to try to help as he mentioned many neighbors had complained too. He came to meet up with me and some other neighbors who had terrible defects even the blind can see. He witnessed for himself and understood why there are so many complaints. Thus he advised that HDB personnel in front of us to check with his higher authorities if they can work out with some reimbursements for owners. But HDB turned a deaf ear to the issue. No follow-up was done with regard to compensations except HDB going back to their old tricks of rectifications after rectifications, hoping one day, you will give up and accept whatever they provide you. Many owners gave up because they had rented flats outside or are getting married. The dragging made them run out of time or money for their plans. Knowing that HDB would not be bothered even with the MP helping us, I wrote to Ministry of National Development and the MP in-charge, hoping to seek some justice, but there are more rubbish to come. After 6-8 weeks, we go back to square one with that particular same guy replying to my email saying they are "actively" looking into the issues. MND actually goes back to HDB and HDB goes back to him. There is no escalation path in this ministry. That is the funniest thing I got to know. And I actually did ask that HDB guy to provide me the so call "industrial practice" guidelines. It has been 4 weeks and he is still waiting for approval to reveal the guidelines to us. We are the owners and they required clearance to reveal something we should know to us. I even wrote to the President but was referred back to MND and HDB. There is something terribly wrong with their doings, and I hope Singaporeans are aware of them and be prepared." This resident also posted photos of the defects found in his and his neighbors' new BTO units at Anchorvale Horizon:    Read More →

In her statement, Dr Khor said: "I would like to assure members of the public that the CPF Board acts in accordance with prevailing CPF policies in the interests of its members. CPF Board does not withhold any member's CPF monies if they are eligible to withdraw them, as with Ms Yap's case." I just read the ST this morning and there is a report on Rene Yap’s case. According to Amy Khor, CPF is trying to help Rene to withdraw her savings. However, Rene still has to abide by CPF’s regulation, ie that she must leave a minimum sum or pledge her property to the CPF before she can take out all her savings. What is this minimum sum that is being introduced by the CPF that effectively said the people owe the CPF a sum of money and if this sum is not placed in the CPF, either in cash or a pledge with a property, then a sum equivalent to the minimum sum must be kept in the CPF. Two points to this, the first of course is why should a retiree be compelled to keep a huge sum of money with the CPF when he should be living his golden years and enjoying his lifelong savings? Oh, he must keep the money, a minimum sum that is growing every year and now about $200k, so that he would not be a burden to the govt in case he squanders his money with mei meis or in Batam. It is for his own good. The govt is so caring. See my middle finger? I can’t hold it down. The other point is that Rene is from a generation that should not be affected by all the new regulations introduced before her time. The minimum sum should not be applicable to her and those of her generation and to several older generations. It should not be applicable to everyone if one rejects this ‘govt is your father’ and has the right to keep your money for your own good idiotic reason. The CPF is the people’s money for their retirement and how they want to spend their money in retirement is none of the govt’s business. Don’t give people the crap that if they squandered away their money who is to pay for them to live on? Not the govt for sure. This is not a welfare state. And do not insult the intelligence of the people to find their way to survive without the need to beg the govt for a meal in the hawker centre, food court or the restaurant. From Amy’s and CPF’s reasoning in the ST, they are all so willing to help Rene. But the likelihood of Rene getting all her money back from the CPF is as good as zilch. She must comply with the minimum sum requirements, ie a ransom that she has to pay to the CPF. Actually no, they don’t call it ransom. They call it for your good or for the good of the members that they must make the people pay up front in the form of the minimum sum. So Rene’s case is as good as close and Rene can kpkb till the cow comes home. Amy Khor and the CPF will be on their knees trying to help her. I am so touch, but the answer is still no. Because CPF rules say so. Rene should pray for a miracle to get all her money back from the CPF.   Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenew.blogspot.com    Read More →

We refer to the article “More workers report positive outcomes from national skills training framework” (Straits Times, Jun 11). 81% didn’t get pay raise? It states that “A greater proportion of workers reported receiving a pay raise – 19 per cent did so last year, four percentage points more than the year before”. So, does it mean that despite this year’s 4 percentage point improvement over the year before – 81% did not get a pay raise? Surveys vs statistics of outcomes? “Satisfaction” type surveys may be quite meaningless, unless they are supported by the statistics of the outcomes. If you ask workers – what is the most important desired outcome of training – arguably, the answer may be an increase in pay. So, let’s look at some recent job and wage statistics. Last 6 years’ negative real wage change? Also, the annual change in real total wages (including employer CPF contribution) was dismal, for the last 6 years from 2008 to 2013, at -1.7, -1.0, 2.9, 0.9, 0.4 and 2.9%. The real total wage change (excluding employer CPF contribution?) was even worse at, -2.4, -1.0, 2.7, 0.1, -0.8 and 2.9%, respectively. The real basic wage change was equally bad, at -2.2, -0.7, 1.1, -0.8, -0.1 and 2.7%, respectively. So, does this mean that the cumulative annualised real basic wage change from 2008 to 2013 was about slightly less than 0? 150,000 or 114,100 earning less than $1,000 in 2012? The Manpower Ministry told The Straits Times that there were 117,500 local full-time workers earning $1,000 and below last year, down from 150,000 in 2012. The above statistics are puzzling, because the total number working full-time and earning less than $1,000 was 114,100 in 2012, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Force in Singapore 2012 (Table 25, page 126). Earning less than $1,000 increased 3%? Now that we know from news reports that the number of full-time workers earning less than $1,000 was 117,500 last year – does it mean that it actually increased by about 3% from 114,100 in 2012? Those earning less than $1,000 keep increasing? There was an increase of about 3.4 per cent for 2012, from 2011′s 110,400 (in spite of NWC recommendations and not even accounting for inflation). 238,000 (full-time and part-time) earning less than $1,000? The number of locals (full-time and part-time) earning less than $500 and between $500 and $1,000 was 51,300 and 186,700, respectively in 2012. This means that a total of 238,000 locals (full-time and part-time) earned less than $1,000. Yet another recommendation for less than $1,000 workers? The National Wages Council (NWC) has recommended in its annual wage guidelines that workers earning less than $1,000 each month should get a pay hike of at least $60 , which follows its previous recommendations in 2012 and 2013 that these workers receive minimum pay hikes of $50 and $60. 6 in 10 followed the guidelines? It further added that while more firms followed the guidelines last year – about six in 10 compared to three in 10 in 2012. The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) noted that they still lag behind the nine in 10 unionised firms. 8 in 10 will follow the guidelines? Why do the above statistics seem to differ from that reported on the same day in the Business Times (“Minimum $60 pay rise for low income“, May 31) - “As at the end of last year, almost eight in 10 employers in the private sector had given or said that they intended to give a raise to workers earning less than $1,000 a month, up from six in 10 in 2012″? What we need to know is the percentage of workers earning below $1,000 who received the recommended increase, instead of what proportion of employers or unionised companies who were surveyed accepted the recommendations or said that they intended to do it? In this connection, the last time that the specific statistic was available last year for 2012, was that more than 70% who did not get the recommended increase. So much for yet another survey? If you remember last year, only 3 in 10 workers earning less than $1,000 received the at least $50 increment recommended by the NWC in 2012. (see here) “Spin doctoring”? This starkly sobbing statistic has to be seen in the “spin doctoring” context that it was reported in the media that while eight in 10 companies in the unionised sector accepted the recommendations and boosted the pay of their low-wage workers by at least $50 in 2012, but only three in 10 non-unionised companies followed suit. If not for the MOM report which came out just a few days after the media reports last year – we wouldn’t be the wiser that 8 in 10  and 3 in 10 non-unionised (implying unionised is so much better?) – actually means in totality only 3 in 10 of ‘less than $1,000′ workers got the $50! 63% of employers won’t increase pay more? It was reported that “While 37 per cent of employers surveyed said they would give staff larger salary increments, the rest said they would not change pay levels” (“OCBC gives staff $3m in Wage Credit payouts”, Straits Times, May 19). Does this indicate that the Wage Credit scheme may be a failure? 1 in 3 no pay increase? As if it isn’t bad enough that about 2 out of 3 employers indicated that they would not increase pay more because of the Wage Credit scheme – Of the Singaporeans eligible for the Wage Credit scheme, two-thirds received pay rises last year, which the first tranche of the Wage Credit Scheme payouts is helping to fund this year. Does it mean that 1 out of 3 Singaporean workers who earn less than $4,000 did not get any pay rise at all? Real income growth? Real median income change from 2008 to 2013 was only about 1.0 per cent per annum … for the 20th percentile – the real change per annum for the last 10 years was only about 0.3 per cent Real growth in graduates’ starting pay negativ? … The real growth in university, polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE)  graduates starting pay has been negative in the last 7 years or so. Widespread age discrimination? The labour statistics also indicate widespread age discrimination – with real pay decreasing as workers get older from their mid-thirties in age – particularly for the lower-wage occupations like cleaners and service workers. PMETs – hard to find jobs? PMETs may be finding it harder to get a job, as 34% of those laid off – could not find a job after 12 months. PMETs had highest redundancy rate? The problems of PMETs may also be compounded by their highest redundancy rate – PMETs were more vulnerable to redundancy, with 7.3 made redundant for every 1,000 PMETs, compared to production and related workers (5.7 per 1,000) and clerical, sales and service workers (2.8 per 1,000). Unemployed and under-employed? I understand that there are about 70,000 unemployed and long-term unemployed locals, more than 200,000 who have indicated that they would like to return to the workforce, tens if not hundreds of thousands of under-employed (getting much lower pay than their last drawn pay), etc. Impact of foreign workers? To what extent has our liberal foreign labour policies and huge influx of foreign workers – contributed to the woes of Singaporean workers as highlighted by the above statistics? 53% are Singaporeans? In this connection, with 38% of the workforce being foreign workers – If we assume that about 15% of the “locals”"workers are permanent residents, then the percentage of Singaporeans in the total workforce, is about 53%. Less than 50% are Singaporeans? If we make an adjustment for new citizens, does it mean that less than half the workforce were not “truly” Singaporeans? 260,800 “locals” jobs increase vs 451,934 new citizens/PRs? - What percentage of the increase in the resident labour force of 260,800 from 2007 to June 2013 were Singaporeans, against the estimated 451,934 new citizens and new PRs granted in the 7 years to end 2013?   SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian  Read More →