For Want of a Better Title

The Real “Problem” with SMRT Train Operators

December 23, 2011 at 12:41 am | Posted in But Seriously | Leave a comment

I read this with great interest as to why no announcements were made. I don’t get why this is a language issue. I think most SMRT train operators are competent English speakers, what I think the real problem is that they may lack the confidence or skill in public speaking.

Seriously folks, most of us dread public speaking. Doesn’t matter if you don’t actually see your audience and you are speaking into a microphone. It’s tough. It’s hard enough if you have a script to follow, it’s tougher if its unscripted. In most emergencies, it’s unscripted. Train operators are recruited for their technical skills and not their public speaking skills. Sure there will be some who can do it, but generally most of us are afraid to speak before a large crowd. I’m lucky to have received training and am expected to speak publicly as part of my job, but it’s still nerve wrecking each time you do it. Even with a script.

So to me this who issue is not about language skills but public speaking skills, maybe SMRT should start training their train operators and other staff in public speaking. Perhaps focusing on their PR department more. =P

Gifts and Matrimonal Assets

November 27, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

Disclaimer: I thought I’d share what I understand about the this matter. This is my understanding. Please ask a lawyer if you want a legal opinion, and a marriage counselor to see if a divorce is avoidable.

So two cases came out from the High Court that seem opposite to one another. They are

Tan Cheng Guan v Tan Hwee Lee [2011] SGHC 216 (“Tan“)
Wan Lai Cheng v Quek Seok Kee [2011] 2 SLR 814 (“Wan“)

In Tan, Choo Han Teck J (a judge I respect for always doing justice when needed) pointed out that the division of assets is a 3-stage process

Pooling of the assets and determining the value of the pool (“Pooling”)
Deciding what the “fair and equitable” division between the parties should be (“Decision”)
The division (“Division”)

Choo J, held that

Concept of an irrevocable gift remains valid, but it only applies at the division stage
Inter-spousal gifts should not be excluded at the Pooling stage as the exception in the Women’s Charter is only for property that was not part of the matrimonial asset in the first place
Inter-spousal gifts should also be considered at the Decision stage
Wan is distinguishable because the source of the gifts are uncertain (spouse or third-party?)

How I see it

The judgement in Tan is a sound and fair one.

Gifts from 3rd parties should be excluded unless the non-receiving spouse did something to that gift to improve it. For example, the wife won a diamond ring in a lucky draw and the husband resets it with sapphires to a necklace.

Inter-spousal gifts are an expenditure of the matrimonial assets. Since money earned by a spouse is part of the matrimonial asset, so buying a gift for the other spouse must mean a drawing down of the common matrimonial pool. The gift must then be part of the matrimonial asset. For example, wife uses her year-end bonus to buy her husband an expensive watch as a gift. That watch would be a matrimonial asset

But it would be unfair to ask for the watch back at the divorce. It was a gift. So to reconcile the two, the watch is a matrimonial asset that the husband will keep at the division.

Allow me illustrate

Ms. A marries Mr. Z

In their 3rd year of marriage Ms. A uses her salary and year-end bonus to buy Mr. Z a nice watch costing about $20,000. That $20,000 watch is a gift.

In their 7th year of marriage, Ms. A just feels like there are irretrievable differences in the marriage and wants to divorce Mr. Z. Assuming there is no need to wait 3 or 5 years, they head to the court on ancillary matters. Also assuming they have no children, then all that there is left to do it is the division of matrimonial assets.

Let’s say they own 1 HDB flat worth $680,000, and they also bought a condominium 5 months ago at $1,750,000. Mr. Z also has a car valued at $40,000.

Ms. A has a bank account with $120,000, as well as 2 fixed deposits ($10,000 and $15,000 respectively). She has a life insurance policy valued at $300,000.

Mr. Z has a bank account with $45,000, as well as shares valued at $72,000. He has 2 life insurance policies valued at $150,000 and $200,000 respectively.

They also have a joint bank account with $60,000.

For simplicity sake, we assume that all of these properties are fully paid for (no loans).

So the total value of their assets (w/o the watch) is $3,322,000. Adding the watch it will be $3,342,000.

Assuming that the court rules that the division of assets should be 50/50, they will each get $1,671,000.

Immediately $20,000 will be deducted from the money that is to come to Mr.Z as he will get to keep the watch. So he will be expecting $1,651,000.

So, it is fair that the gift should be considered as part of the division since Ms. A expended matrimonial monies to purchase that watch, but it is unfair for her to demand it back from Mr. Z. It was a gift and it should belong to Mr. Z. He has been using the watch for 4 years after all.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Public Service Annoucement] Proposed Changes to Work Injury (Compensation) Bill

November 25, 2011 at 11:42 am | Posted in But Seriously | Leave a comment

Disclaimer: As a PSA, I thought I’d share what I understand about the proposed changes to the Work Injury (Compensation) Act. This is my understanding, go read the Act yourself when they pass it. This is also tongue in cheek.
Proposed Work Injury (Compensation) Bill
Was proposed on 18 Nov 2011

Major changes

if you fight at work, your employer is not liable, unless it falls within the exemptions
if you get a disease from work (by way of chemical or biological agents), your employer is now liable
you cannot make a claim after the limitation period has passed (previously you could)

Explanations

if you fight, no compensation. if you acted in self-defence, protecting life/property or were trying to break up the fight, then you can get compensated
if you are exposed to some sort of chemical or biological agent at work, your employer will be liable to compensate you (it is unclear if your employer has to compensate you if you become Spiderman or some other superhero due to exposure to these chemical/biological agents)
Compensation only due to you if it was within the limitation period after leaving your job and your job scope included exposure to that agent. So if you are employed as a paper mover in the Paper Shuffling Department, and for some reason you got exposed to a radioactive spider from the Radioactive Animals Department, you will not get compensation

What it means for you

stop fighting at work
don’t get bitten by a radioactive spider unless your job scope says you have to work with radioactive spiders
make sure that if you work as a radioactive spider handler and you get bitten to claim before the limitation period is up (check the second Schedule, if not listed then 1 year)

[Public Service Annoucement] Changes to the Retirement Act

November 25, 2011 at 11:23 am | Posted in But Seriously | Leave a comment

Disclaimer: As a PSA, I thought I’d share what I understand about the changes to the Retirement Act. This is my understanding, go read the Act yourself.

The new Retirement and Re-employment Act will come into effect on 1 Jan 2012, amending the old Retirement Act.

Note:

If you turn 62 before 1 Jan 2012, then the re-employment rules will not be applicable to you (laws are not usually retroactively applied/ it has got to do with how good laws do not apply backwards or something like that/ I hated jurisprudence so go ask someone else)
Current specified age is 62, can change

Presumption: you are medically fit for re-employment and your work is satisfactory, employer will have to prove that you are not capable of re-employment

So what are the changes?

Employer is obliged to re-employ you after you hit 62 (specified age) until you turn 65 (but this upper limit can changed by Manpower Minister)
Employer is deemed to comply if they let you keep working without a new contract of service
However, the employer can also enter a new contract of service, to vary the terms of the previous contract. Variations based on several factors including, your productivity, performance, duties, responsibilities and wage.
Also, if you enter the new contract, the previous contract is disregarded
If employer cannot reasonably re-employ you, then they have to give you employment assistance payments (EAP) to help you until you can find employment with another employer.
However, if you tell your employer you that you want to retire at 62, then he has no obligation to give you EAP

What does this all mean?

You’ll be working until 65 if you choose, otherwise you can enjoy retirement at 62
Your employer has to show that you “cannot make it” if they don’t want to re-employ you at 62
If your employer really cannot keep you on (downsizing, job too demanding for a 62 year old, etc) then they have to give you EAP, but you have to look for a new job (I don’t know how EAP will be calculated).

To TOC: CHECK YOUR FACTS

May 3, 2011 at 8:19 am | Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

TOC is a liar

All electors’ information are available on the electoral registry. There is no abuse of information, the register is public information if you are willing to purchase the register. Obviously TOC is not as fair or balanced as it claims.