Singapore Expats

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singapor ... 11977.html

Im surprised MOM can say that they can't do anything if the employer wont pay the worker.

morenangpinay wrote:http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singapor ... 11977.html

Im surprised MOM can say that they can't do anything if the employer wont pay the worker.

Good article. Clearly not MSM Singapore. The problem I think MOM faces (and I have no sympathy for them) is that if they bail out these workers.... then they will become by default the bailor for a hell of a lot more construction fly by night companies. What is really amiss is that court orders are not being fully enforced and back wages recovered against the company directors or shareholders.

morenangpinay wrote:http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singapor ... 11977.html

Im surprised MOM can say that they can't do anything if the employer wont pay the worker.

Can't or won't? I think we know which.

The elephant in the room to me is that the author makes no reference to having tried to get MoMs side of the story. In fact he goes further and appears to become an advocate for the workers, i.e. an advocate for one side of the story.

That does not strike me as quality journalism.

We shouldn't blow our own trumpets but during the first 'bus strike' we all said it was just the beginning and now we're on the third stoppage in as many weeks...... that we even know of.

There will definitely be more to come. MoM and the unions need to get to grips with the underlaying problems.

JR8 wrote:The elephant in the room to me is that the author makes no reference to having tried to get MoMs side of the story. In fact he goes further and appears to become an advocate for the workers, i.e. an advocate for one side of the story.

That does not strike me as quality journalism.

He alludes to (perhaps) observing or witnessing the 'strikers' call MOM. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. However the case of the worker who got a court order and was deported without collecting is public record and some of the other cases have been reported in the MSM. The authors basic contention that this is a growing problem is one I can accept.

offshoreoildude wrote: The authors basic contention that this is a growing problem is one I can accept.

And all I'll say is that I find it most surprising that this Singapore based journalist feels at liberty to criticise the government via a one-sided article.

JR8 wrote:

offshoreoildude wrote: The authors basic contention that this is a growing problem is one I can accept.

And all I'll say is that I find it most surprising that this Singapore based journalist feels at liberty to criticise the government via a one-sided article.

I was wondering about that.... I have a sneaky suspicion the author lives in Aussie.

offshoreoildude wrote: I was wondering about that.... I have a sneaky suspicion the author lives in Aussie.

Ok then

[Rewind]

'And all I'll say is that I find it most surprising that a Singapore based company published a piece by a journalist who apparently feels at liberty to criticise the government via a one-sided article.

JR8 wrote:

offshoreoildude wrote: I was wondering about that.... I have a sneaky suspicion the author lives in Aussie.

Ok then

[Rewind]

'And all I'll say is that I find it most surprising that a Singapore based company published a piece by a journalist who apparently feels at liberty to criticise the government via a one-sided article.

Sg.yahoo.com is a Singapore based company..... yeah - I agree that puzzled me too. But maybe sg.yahoo.com is not really Singapore based?

offshoreoildude wrote:

JR8 wrote:

offshoreoildude wrote: The authors basic contention that this is a growing problem is one I can accept.

And all I'll say is that I find it most surprising that this Singapore based journalist feels at liberty to criticise the government via a one-sided article.

I was wondering about that.... I have a sneaky suspicion the author lives in Aussie.

Yeah, I remember reading articles by this guy before, that are quite bold. Try googling "Unacceptable nearly 40% of population is made up of foreigners"

Hey, it's 99% foreigners, since it was founded by Raffles and the British.

Am I right or what ah?

so the article was updated. the company paid the workers yesterday. losing face at its best.

I believe the article is a blog and the guy is an advocate for foreign workers so its one sided and opinionated. The problem is Yahoo sg published it and made it look like news which it isnt.

maybe the guy wasn't on the government's radar. lol unfortunately I believe he will find himself in deep trouble now.

morenangpinay wrote:so the article was updated. the company paid the workers yesterday. losing face at its best.

I believe the article is a blog and the guy is an advocate for foreign workers so its one sided and opinionated. The problem is Yahoo sg published it and made it look like news which it isnt.

maybe the guy wasn't on the government's radar. lol unfortunately I believe he will find himself in deep trouble now.

There is a right to free speech in Singapore believe it or not. Part IV of the constitution to be specific. If his writing is not subversive or libelous then he is in the ok. The media publishing license might be an issue.

offshoreoildude wrote:

JR8 wrote:

offshoreoildude wrote: Sg.yahoo.com is a Singapore based company..... yeah - I agree that puzzled me too. But maybe sg.yahoo.com is not really Singapore based?

Andrew is one of TOC guys (The Online Citizen) and I think he is well aware of gahmen regulations and squeeze they tried to put on online media. Unfortunately for gahmen they would have to go all in China way with "Great Firewall" and even then they would have problems controlling information spread.

BTW, it's a blog and Yahoo Singapore was sued by SPH not so long time ago. And as far as I am concerned he is a lot better journalist than any of in local cage liners who just regurgitate gahmen press releases.