Shocking Waste of Public Funds
-
Shocking is a mild word to use for such a blatant misuse of Public Funds.
First HDB pay S$200million in retrenchment benefits to 2,630 of their Staff, and then RE-EMPLOY those retrenched into a newly incorporated HDB Construction Company.
Why are the workers not transferred directly into the newly formed HDB Construction Company ?
Why is the Government forming a Construction Company in the middle of their proclaimed effort to divest all GLCs owned by the Temasek Group ?
Is the Government serious about all the talk and assurances given on how they intend Singapore to be more competitive ?
Or does the word being "more competitive" mean to create more competition to the Private Sector ? -
i don't know what the hell is going on with this HDB debacle... but did you read today's papers?
they said that they can "recover the funds in 6 years"...
that's beside the point isn't it? are they trying to divert attention from the fact that there was blatant mismanagement and a total waste of $220mio?
the cynics out there are saying that the rise in tax of cigarettes are to enable the gahmen to cover up this loss...
what the hell is going on? -
This overpriced retrenchment exercise to compensate the 1315 (apprently only half of those involved will be placed in the new subsidiary) already overpaid employees "retrenched" by the HDB and then simply transferred to the subsidiary is a slap in the face for all unemployed and retrenched Singaporeans who know what it means to be really unemployed at home twiddling their thumbs looking for jobs that aren't there.
So they'll be taking an up-to-15% paycut. Welcome to the real world fat cats, the private sector has been cutting wages for years for more work. Why do these overpaid bureaucrats need to be fattened up to accept the same?
The cost recovered in 6 years? If any private sector CEO came up with this cost-cutting plan in his company the shareholders would shoot him and string him up on the nearest lampost. What sort of cost cutting exercise bears fruits after 6 years?
Shame on you HDB! -
these are the same people who tells u tt times r bad, save yr money, b wary of worse times to come thn ask u to step out singapore n shop shop shop....
-
come on people... are we speaking about the same penny pinching PAP or did Mah bow tan just became the god of wealth overnight for those former civil servants?
if there is anything certain... about our govt ... they tends to be pretty strict when it comes to money... especially when those money ends up in the pockets outside the govt boards into the public hands...
not that i wanna be cynicall.. but... i wonder... if the payout was benefitting those civil servants more... or the govt more..
i mean... have you people seen the terms of employment for civil servants way back 20 years ago?? there are so many perks, benefits and retirement benefits... it will make us drool saliver from changi to tuas!!
and since the govt cannot happy happy break a signed terms of agreedment... it must stick to those terms of employment...
the question becomes... not whether public money is wasted... i mean.. its a terms of agreedment.. its a case of whether more money would have to be spend in the future then now if we did not retrench those civil servants...and pay them the compensation NOW!!!
that's my opinion of course...
from bits and pieces of information i gathered thus far... i roughly calculated that the cost of not paying those civil servants now.. but instead choose to pay them upon retirement.. would cost the govt MUCH MUCH MORE then 220 million dollars...
personally... i think its a wise choice... -
Seriously now, do you believe that all 2,630 HDB workers are employed on the genorous terms of the 1950's Civil Service Contracts ?
From this penny pinching Government, they had already offered the Civil Servants to either get out of the Gratuity Program or go with the CPF system.
Other then the odd benefits that are no more generous than those paid in the Private Sector, there is not much to drool saliva over for most of the lower ranking HDB jobs.
Do you seriously believe that all those 2,630 HDB workers that are paid a total of $200million, are still employable at the new HDB Construction Company if they were employed under the 1950's Civil Service Contract ?
Those who remained employed under the 1950's Civil Service Contract would have been already retired, as the CPF Program had largely taken over the Gratuity Program during the early 1970's; and extra perks in the form of higher revised salary - (to attract talent into the Civil Service) - are not much different from the Private Sector.
CISCO is supposed to be a "private and commercially runned" Security Service; and yet these lowly ranking Police Officers are TRANSFERRED from the Police Force to CISCO; and their pay is paid from the CISCO operating budget.
These Police Officers are NOT retrenched, paid retrenchment benefits, and re-employed by CISCO.
These CISCO Police Officers run a higher daily risks - (putting their lives in the path of danger guarding all kinds of high risk places and movement of important items and people) - than the regular Police Officers on beat and traffic duties.
This action serves a precedent in Government Policy of redeploying their human assets WITHOUT wasting public funds. -
may have something to do if upon retirement, their retirement benefits go to huge amounts, cos of longer service, one advantage of this is that the civil servants are considered as starting as new employees, so their benefits can't escalate from their previous job.
And this is a common practice by Western companies i think, one division retires a worker and the other hires him/her overnight. . .
though in such bad times, and with the govt still making appeals to us all lowly Singaporeans out here to spend money, i agree that the sum is just too much. . . even if it results in some minor savings later
(i know companies sometimes do that cos my mum told me abt it,at least Smith International did that before. . ., though on a smaller scale)
there was also some law involved cos the two divisions of Smith Int'l were listed as seperately although they come under the same umbrella, in the US, such a transfer can't be done, perhaps there is a similar law in Singapore i dunno. . . -
The difference here is that private companies use their own $$ to do what they do, and if wastages result, they're wasting their own $$$ and they're accountable to their shareholders.
HDB used the SRS (Special Resignation Scheme) as a loophole to justfy the huge payout, its just like what Lase51088 said the private company did, the difference here is:
- The money is public funds (ie our income taxes, our GST)
- These are lean times, and smacks of hypocrisy when our beloved ministers call for lowered expectations, belt-tightening and austerity while fattening already fat cats
Coming hot on the heels of telling long-term unemployed Singaporeans they cannot even dip into their CPF for short-term relief, this huge payout using public to people who're not unemployed in a "practical" sense is ludicrious -
yeah but there may still be the issue of law. . .Originally posted by Viper52:The difference here is that private companies use their own $$ to do what they do, and if wastages result, they're wasting their own $$$ and they're accountable to their shareholders.
HDB used the SRS (Special Resignation Scheme) as a loophole to justfy the huge payout, its just like what Lase51088 said the private company did, the difference here is:
- The money is public funds (ie our income taxes, our GST)
- These are lean times, and smacks of hypocrisy when our beloved ministers call for lowered expectations, belt-tightening and austerity while fattening already fat cats
Coming hot on the heels of telling long-term unemployed Singaporeans they cannot even dip into their CPF for short-term relief, this huge payout using public to people who're not unemployed in a "practical" sense is ludicrious -
Having read thru much of the above posts as contributed by the rest, I would also like to add in my opinion with regards to the issue from both the immediate micro perspective, as well as the macro implications of the event in the domestic business environment.
In refreshing back our memories pertaining to the events, we see that the course of events unfolding:
1)HDB Management requesting senior staff to volunteer for the SRS (Special Resignation Scheme). The objective of this SRS program is aimed primarily at trimming staff strength to a minimum, while at the same time, ‘retaining’ the younger staff of the statutory board.
2)Having identified upon the ‘volunteered’ candidates for the SRS program, HDB then proceeded to calculate out the repayment packages for each individuals.
3)Meanwhile, the new HDB Corp is also actively carrying out its own recruitment exercise.
4)Having received their SRS package, the freshly discharged former HDB staff would hence be looking for a new job.
5)Naturally, having done what they have been doing for the past decades, the first company that the majority of the crowd would have in mind, would naturally be the new HDB Corp.
6)Of those whom had then applied for vacancies in the new company, 700 got the job.
And simultaneously, the rest is history as we would all have been very clear about.
Now in reviewing thru the entire logic flow process of the events unfolding, we see that there were certainly no issues of legislative breaches with regards in particular to the Singapore Employment Act.
Be the entire scenario analyzed from its legality perspective, much of the critical elements involved can be said to be done in place with accordance to the legal structure.
And in view of certain remarks by the public crying foul at ‘abuse’ of the SRS system where critics have been questioning on why the 700 former HDB employees whom had been the recipients of the SRS package are once again rehired by HDB Corp, the official spokesman for HDB has clarified that the rationale for the ‘retrench first then hire again’ move was to ensure that the newly established corporation to have ‘a fresh start’ without the carrying forward of previous burdens.
Going strictly by the book, we cannot deny that truth in the statement, nor question on its legality, since as with the previous above, there were no breach.
Under the logic based form of analysis, every event and every action that has taken placed were systematic and well in place in accordance with the default protocol practices.
In other words, there were no fault with HDB ManagementÂ’s decision.
But then again, what we have seen in the above represented only the logic and rational aspect of the case.
If we were to involve the factor of human emotions into the picture as well, we would suddenly come to realize that unlike the previous conclusion, we have forgotten to take into consideration, the sense of guilt in the hearts of the HDB management.
The decision to retrench is never an easy one to make. All the more, when the organization that is currently facing the need to do so, is a governmentally affiliated statutory board.
And to add in onto the stress, the case would also be its first in the history of Singapore, where a statutory board would be retrenching it staff for the first time.
Compounded by the reluctance to play the role of the ‘bad guys’ and at the same time, to minimized upon the shock of the public from the shaken confidence that even the security of jobs in the statutory boards are now no different from that of those in the private sectors, my personal belief is that in its formulating and execution of the entire re-trimming and SRS program, the HDB Management had been the victims of their subconscious pressure to compensate their retrenched staff to the best of their abilities.
In doing so, we cannot deny that the intention of the HDB management has been well intended.
However due to the nature of its statutory board nature and the origin of its source of funding to have come from the Singapore Government and the tax payers, one cannot help but to frown on the appropriateness of the eventsÂ’ sequential happening.
Going back to previous event sequence as seen above, consider the routing of an alternate possibility:
1)HDB Corp is actively recruiting.
2)HDB wants to trim down on staff strength.
3)Both HDB and HDB Corp work together to identify on the cluster of existing HDB staff who are interested in a transfer to the new establishment.
4)Interviewing takes place, and the selected 700 staff are transferred to the new HDB Corp.
5)The remainant pool of HDB staff would then be offered the SRS scheme.
6)Those who opted for the scheme would thus be discharged from service.
As suggested by the above, it would have taken only the small reversal of a few actions under the same situation to complete the necessary.
Had the HDB management used a similar sequence to that of above, there would have not been no need for HDB to wait ‘6 years’ to recover back a portion of the sums as lost to the SRS package.
Under the conditions of such trying times, think of the alternatives in which the monies could have been spent on more wisely.
For example, think about those lesser privileged few whom may be from the lower or middle-low income clusters.
These fellow countrymen who may be having problems paying for their sundries, loans or rentals for their tiny 3 or 2 room flats.
In comparison with the opportunity cost of the monies spent between the choices of the monies being spent on a retrenchment package and a year of rebates for some thousands families, it is hence regrettable to say that thought the manner of handing had not in breach of any legalistic framework, but under the challenge of opportunity cost and appropriateness, the managementÂ’s decision certainly does not appear to fall into the best practice and fitting category. -
Continuing on onto a more macro perspective of evaluation, the case of the HDB SRS has no doubt distinguished itself out as an important precedent and case study for subsequent management study and discussions to be made upon.
The importance of the HDB SRS Case lies primarily in its highlighting of a crucial balancing order by the management, to address on the varying concerns between the clash of two very important stakeholders in the organizationÂ’s environment, namely, members of the public, and the HDB staff themselves.
Incidentally as pointed in the earlier post above, it is suspected that the involvement of human emotions have also played some significant but invisible influence on the decisional outcomes of the entire event unfold chain.
While the presence of emotional interferences is an area which no humans would be able to filter out completely from any one given decision making process, the least that could be used as an alternative to counter on its inherent biasness, would probably be to engage in the assistance of an independent HR committee for the arising of subsequent and similar future events.
Working on properties that are similar to the function of an independent audit committee of a registered company, perhaps it is time to consider the inclusion of such special HR committees to be formed under a greater umbrella of Corporate Governance.
While the private sectors companies and organization have full fledged says in their internal affairs, public sector and afflicted cannot be said so.
Hence, it could be feasible to have an external taskforce body that may be set up temporary to oversee the process and progress of a ( touch wood ) similar statutory board retrenchment exercise.
Ideally, the proposed supervising committee could have representatives from both the Accountant-General and Auditor-GeneralÂ’s Offices, representatives from the HR professionals and selected top management individuals with good performance, moral and ethical track records.
The introduction of such a protocol would not only serve to prevent on similar gray occurrences, but also, signify as a further maturity of the local corporate governing awareness.
Incidentally, without association to any previous examples, the existence of the body would also serve to ensure on the transparency and legitimacy of future retrenchment practices.
Thought there will be the complains of added bureaucracy, the positive benefits would include the discouraging to organizations to use retrenchment as ‘readily available textbook solutions to a bad time’ as depicted from the current business environmental trend, or as a means of bully to instill fear and unfair compliances to an unjust set of requirements.
With every major retrenchment that would thus be placed under open public scrutiny, it is generally believed that such openness would serve to elevate upon the curbing of managements to use staff re-trimming as a popular manner of corrective action, and to help promote on more creative problem-solving and bona fide courses of actions.
And keeping in mind that that majority if private sectors employers are still largely foreign-based MNCs, it is all the more important that a stable sense of business confidence is conveyed to them.
Continuous reports on retrenchment matters and conflicts would certainly help to do little but to complicate on ensuring such critical confidence for more heavy weight foreign investors to forth. -
[ Neo ]'s posts, while long, only serve to reinforce many of the points and questions that have been raised in here and other forums (Most sycophantic local newspapers notwithstanding)
- We know theres no breaking of laws here. The local ruling party has a tradition of staying within the laws but using it to their best advantage
- However why is the payout so huge? Considering
1) These are lean times and there have been numerous calls by the government themselves for Singaporeans to expect less, so why is there double standards?
2) We deny 100,000 jobless Singaporeans a few hundred dollars of their own CPF savings to tide themselves over yet we happily pay out an average of $84,000 of public money to those who know they are re-employed?
3) Why is there a need to pretend to be separate entities and go through a wayang process of applying, interviewing and re-hiring when every man and his dog knows HDB and HDB Corp are one and the same? -
I think it's just a way to make a public announcement that the new construction company is a completely separate entity and has nothing to do with HDB. If you ask me it is just plain stupidity
-
Originally posted by Viper52:
[ Neo ]'s posts, while long, only serve to reinforce many of the points and questions that have been raised in here and other forums (Most sycophantic local newspapers notwithstanding)
- We know theres no breaking of laws here. The local ruling party has a tradition of staying within the laws but using it to their best advantage
- However why is the payout so huge? Considering
1) These are lean times and there have been numerous calls by the government themselves for Singaporeans to expect less, so why is there double standards?
2) We deny 100,000 jobless Singaporeans a few hundred dollars of [b]their own CPF savings to tide themselves over yet we happily pay out an average of $84,000 of public money to those who know they are re-employed?
3) Why is there a need to pretend to be separate entities and go through a wayang process of applying, interviewing and re-hiring when every man and his dog knows HDB and HDB Corp are one and the same?
[/b]
Ok. So I was a little long winded as usual.
But just to hightlight better on some of the emphasis in my earlier post, I was actually trying to focus the attention onto
1) The 'Guilt' factor as a potential underlying attribute for the large payout.
2) The potential biasness of such a factor and its influences on the transparency and appropriateness of public enitites' decisions against the best interest of the public, and
3) The subsequent recomendation of an independent and multicomposite 3rd party committee to serve as a check on on future similar occurences.
These are points, which I believe, were previously unmentioned before in the papers. Not sure about the other forums though.
And what's more, what done has already been done. I presume that it would be both hard and with bad grace should the authorities decide to recover back that paid out sum.
Nevertheless, the incident should prompt us to re-examine better on areas of potential glitches, so that a proper stitch in time, may save nine. -
I think the ministers becoming like Malaysian PM like that... old and senile. Dey should election ME to bew the PM, then i solve your proeblems!