Connect with us

Comments

Concerns raised over job prospects for older workers as Singapore Turf Club begins retrenchment

As the Singapore Turf Club (STC) prepares to retrench the first batch of 90 employees amid its closure, concerns have emerged on social media about the impact on those nearing retirement. Many question if the job fairs and training courses will be adequate for securing new employment. The STC site is set to be returned to the government by 2027 for redevelopment into housing and other uses.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Following the announcement that the Singapore Turf Club (STC) will retrench all 350 of its employees in phases, the Singaporean community has voiced concerns on social media.

Many are worried about the impact on workers who are already in their mid to late career stages, questioning whether the job fairs and skills-training courses provided will be sufficient to help them secure new employment.

As reported by Singapore state media Channel News Asia, the first batch of 90 employees will be gradually let go between November 2024 and April 2025.

To support the affected workers, the STC has identified over 300 training courses, with about 95% of the employees having taken advantage of these opportunities.

On average, each worker has completed approximately 42 hours of training.

Additionally, the STC will hold two exclusive job fairs in September, offering more than 1,800 job opportunities across the hospitality, healthcare, and government sectors to its employees.

The timeline for the retrenchment of the remaining employees is still being finalised.

In a separate development, around 700 horses will be exported, and the final race at the Singapore Racecourse will take place on October 5, 2024.

In June last year, The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Ministry of National Development (MND) announced the STC’s impending closure, citing a decline in local horse racing spectatorship and the need to repurpose the land for the city-state’s growing infrastructure needs.

The approximately 120-hectare land parcel in Kranji, where the Singapore Racecourse is located, will be redeveloped for housing and other potential uses, including leisure and recreation.

The land is scheduled to be returned to the government by 2027.

As reported by CNA, retrenched workers from the Singapore Turf Club expressed mixed emotions about the impending closure.

Mr Subramaniam, who spent 45 years at the club, reflected on his deep personal connection to the racecourse, having started his career as a painter and later taking on various roles.

Ms Sandy Yong, who worked in the membership and rewards department for five years, lamented the loss of a supportive work environment but is preparing to transition to an administrative role.

“It’s hard to find a job that has good colleagues and good bosses,” she said.

Mr Samsudin Rakidin, with over 45 years of service, plans to rest before taking on new work, possibly in a hospital.

Concern Over Multiple Retrenchment News and the Impact on Workers in Their Mid to Late Careers

Commenting on the STC retrenchment due to its impending closure, netizens shared heartfelt reactions on CNA’s Facebook post.

Some users expressed sympathy for the employees, underscoring the emotional challenge of departing from a place that has been integral to their passion and long-term careers.

There was concern about the high number of retrenchments news reported recently, with comparisons drawn to other companies like Qoo10 Singapore, which also announced significant staff cuts.

Some comments noted the challenges faced by older workers, questioning whether the management could guarantee suitable job placements for them, given their age and the potential difficulty in finding new employment.

It was pointed out that retrenched staff nearing retirement age might struggle with lower-paying jobs or even pay cuts due to their specific skill sets and limited job market opportunities.

Nostalgia was also a common theme, with users recalling their personal connections to the Turf Club, including memories of growing up in the club’s quarters, underscoring the deep emotional impact of the closure on both current and former employees.

Continue Reading
8 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Redditors blame driving school shortages, not bots, for booking woes in Singapore

A Reddit thread has critiqued Singapore’s driving schools for long wait times, arguing that limited capacity—not bots—is the real issue. Redditors question government restrictions on private instructors and suggest inefficiencies are driving up costs for learners.

Published

on

A Reddit thread has surfaced in response to a Channel News Asia (CNA) article published on 12 September, which highlighted the growing problem of internet bots being used to book practical driving lessons in Singapore.

The CNA article points out that driving schools like the Singapore Safety Driving Centre, ComfortDelGro Driving Centre, and Bukit Batok Driving Centre are struggling to manage the post-pandemic surge in sign-ups, with waiting times now stretching from two to six months for practical lessons.

Redditors highlight deeper issues beyond bots

While the CNA article focused on the ethical concerns of bot usage and the efforts by schools like ComfortDelGro to mitigate these activities through CAPTCHA and AI algorithms, Redditors argue that the real issue lies in the limited capacity of driving schools, which has remained stagnant for years despite the growing demand.

One Redditor summed up the issue succinctly: “I think the problem is very clear, and it’s not the bots. Despite the growth in population size and the number of lanes on the road, I don’t think our driving school capacity has increased much over the last 2 decades.”

This view reflects a shared frustration with the limited availability of lessons, rather than the bots being the core problem.

Intentional restrictions?

Another thread participant speculated that these capacity limitations might be intentional, aligning with Singapore’s long-standing goal of becoming a car-lite society.

This commenter remarked: “I thought this was intentional to make it harder to learn to drive. Coupled with the fact that they’ve stopped giving out new private driving instructor licenses since forever.”

This sentiment resonated with other Redditors, who pointed out that restricting driving access through such methods might be an indirect way of discouraging car ownership without implementing more obvious or direct measures.

A common theme throughout the discussion was the call for more private driving instructors, as their dwindling numbers have exacerbated the problem. The CNA article notes that Singapore stopped issuing new licenses for private driving instructors in 1987, and only around 300 private instructors remain today.

Redditors expressed frustration over this restriction, with one saying: “Opening the doors for more private driving instructors would solve a lot of this crazy pent-up demand… I can’t understand why TP [Traffic Police] refuses to consider this when their 3 authorized schools are run like a shitshow.”

Others echoed this call, questioning why the private route isn’t expanded when the schools are clearly overwhelmed.

The CNA article reported that bots are used to snap up slots when other learners cancel bookings, often leaving regular students scrambling to secure lessons.

Many Redditors shared their personal frustrations with the booking systems, with one user stating: “I remember many years back when I took my lessons, it was already very hard to book… In the end I wrote a script to help me to book lessons and I could complete in a much shorter timeframe.”

Another user mentioned: “I enrolled in February, it’s September now, and I can’t even get a single slot for my 3A.”

These anecdotes reflect a widespread sense of exasperation with a system that many feel has not adapted to meet current demand.

Allegations of inefficiency

Some Redditors also questioned whether driving schools have any incentive to resolve these issues, accusing them of benefiting from drawn-out processes and high fees.

One participant commented: “The school instructors have no relationship with the student and are paid to just go through lessons like a robot rather than concentrating on the student’s weaknesses. Meanwhile the school has an incentive to drag the process out as long as possible to collect as much fees as possible.”

This view paints a picture of inefficiency and potential exploitation, adding to the frustrations of those trying to obtain their driving licenses.

The broader impact of Singapore’s car-lite policy

Several Redditors tied the bot controversy to Singapore’s broader push for a car-lite society, with one remarking: “They’re probably thinking: it’s part of the system to discourage cars on the road… TP failed lots of people, that’s why they have so much backlog.”

Some users felt that discouraging people from learning to drive could lead to long-term issues, with one suggesting that the difficulty in obtaining a license might ultimately reduce the number of private hire vehicles (PHVs) on the road: “All this is doing in the long run is making taxis extinct faster and possibly creating an issue years from now where there aren’t enough PHVs around because most Singaporeans gave up learning how to drive.”

The Reddit thread responding to the CNA article reveals that many Singaporeans believe the issues with booking driving lessons run deeper than just bots.

The root causes—limited capacity, intentional restrictions, and inefficiency—are seen as part of a broader challenge in Singapore’s car-lite ambitions.

Redditors are calling for reforms, such as more private instructors and greater transparency, to address the growing frustrations around learning to drive in Singapore.

Continue Reading

Comments

Halimah Yaacob proposes classifying platform workers as employees for enhanced protections

Former Singapore President Halimah Yaacob hailed the Platform Workers Bill as a “good start” for protecting gig workers but suggested a simpler approach: classifying some platform workers as employees for automatic labour law, social security, and union protections. She emphasised that the current system, which leaves workers bearing all risks and costs, is unsustainable and adversely affects their future and families.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Former Singapore President Halimah Yaacob has lauded the recently passed Platform Workers Bill as a “good start ” in protecting gig economy workers.

However, she suggested that a more straightforward approach would have been to classify platform workers who meet certain criteria as employees, thereby granting them automatic coverage under labour laws, social security protections, and union representation—an approach already adopted by some countries.

In her Facebook post, Halimah acknowledged the Bill’s role in addressing the vulnerabilities of platform work.

The legislation, effective from 2025, mandates increased Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for platform workers and provides enhanced work injury compensation and representation through union-like associations.

 

The parliamentary debate on September 9 and 10 centered on the distribution of costs—whether they will fall on platform workers, companies, or consumers.

Concerns were raised about the potential impact on consumers and the financial burden on platform companies.

Several MPs expressed worries about discrimination against workers who choose higher contributions and advocated for expanding the law to include other platform services such as domestic cleaning and caregiving.

Senior Minister of State for Manpower Koh Poh Koon reiterated that the protections are meant to level the playing field for businesses and ensure fair competition, while also preventing platform operators from passing the costs unfairly onto consumers or workers.

Madam Halimah highlighted how platform work can distort the pricing of goods and services, with consumers expecting low-cost, fast deliveries.

She noted that if platform workers were classified as employees, the costs of their protection—such as for sickness, business downtime, and social security—would be borne by employers and partially passed on to consumers.

She said It’s then up to us to decide whether to make use of such great convenience but at a certain price.

“It’s then up to the companies to properly factor in their costs to remain competitive as all other businesses are doing. It’s all about the business operating model that has fundamentally changed with the availability of platforms.”

Madam Halimah argued that since platform workers are essentially employees subject to company conditions, they should receive the same protections as other employees in terms of health, social security, and business downtime.

She pointed out that platform workers have been shouldering all the risks and costs, which is not sustainable and affects their ability to secure homes and plan for the future, impacting their families and future generations.

She also discussed the negative aspects of information technology and algorithms, referencing a case from a US fast-food chain where algorithms disrupt workers’ rest periods based on fluctuating customer demand.

The Platform Workers Bill defines platform workers as individuals who provide ride-hailing or delivery services for an online platform and are under the platform’s control.

According to data from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), there were approximately 70,500 platform workers in Singapore in 2023, accounting for about 3 percent of the workforce.

This total includes 22,200 taxi drivers, 33,600 private-hire drivers, and 14,700 delivery workers.

Continue Reading

Trending