GinMocca:

You cannot keep shifting the goal posts. Your definition is non-commercial. Pte houses are non-commercial and I do not pay parking whether I park inside the house or just outside the house ( where the land does not belong to me)

I say, being commercial or non commercial has nothing to do with whether parking is free or not.

It doesn't matter if some non commercial entity don't charge parking, as being commercial or not has no relevance (which is what I'm saying to MotherHen).

The definition is non-commercial, and many of the various government agencies falls under this category. School is own by gov, so are the agencies, so they make a good example for comparison.

And they pay for parking.

stetan:

limlim:

You are the one who has been commenting that teachers are overworked beyond their JD, so why not you provide the so-called JD(if there is any to began with)?.

Nosense. You are the one that claimed that all these \"additional activities\" are within the JD of a teacher. Substantiate what you say with an official JD. Every job in the civil service has a office JD, even the President.

limlim:

In any case, I refer to the following from MOE
\" You equip students with essential skills and sound values to prepare them for life. You inspire and instill the joy of learning, making lessons fun, relevant and authentic

Based on the description, as a profession, any activities including extra coaching for students and organizing field trip all fall under the job obligations, and there is NO case for additional compensation under clean wage policy.

Please lah....like this also can.

Hello, you are the one who is campaigning that teachers should be paid extra because of the \"additional work\" out of JD, in line with clean wage policy.

Hence, the onus is on you to show that those are \"additional work\" that not part of the JD.

If you admit that there is no JD, then just say so.

And accept that those duties are do not warrant any extraneous compensation due to clean wage policy.

In fact, no need to argue here, write to MOE, or the authorities and see how ridiculous your reasoning are.

If they need to be paid, they would have been paid already.

stetan:

I refer to the following from SAF website
\"As a Military Expert in Our Army, you will develop deep professional expertise in key military domains, such as technical, engineering, nursing and intelligence. It will be a career full of opportunities, as you employ your deep specialisation to maintain our operational edge.\"

Based on the job description, any activities that involve construction of buildings, going to hospitals and help up as a nurse all fall under the job obligations.

Can you see now why your analogy is so incredulous ?

Are you really so ignorant that you are not aware that SAF have sent troops to aid in relief efforts overseas? And their activities include all those that you have mentioned, and potentially much more. Going to hospitals? maybe. Working as nurse on site, definitely.

When the need arise, or duty calls, Yes, they have to do all that.

GinMocca:

limlim:

Subsidized or not, it is still a non commercial entity, which is the key point bought up in MotherHen's post. And I was replying to her post.

Unless she wants to edit her post and say \"charging for parking feels wrong because it is a non-commercial and is not like subsidized HDB entity\". lol..It's not a simple case of being non-commercial, you must put in all the caveats if you want to use that in your line of argument.

Nope. Because you cited an irrevelant example:HDB which we call know is heavily subsidized housing.

Do you ever seen pte housing owners ( which are non-subsidized) having to pay for parking when they park in their own house ? These are non-commercial bldg, right ?

You park your car in your own house, nobody will charge you for parking. Private house are called private properties because they own/leased the land they sit on.

School is not private land, it belongs to gov. So is HDB carpark. You park there, you pay. As simple as that. Same for parking in other government agencies. So, being non-commercial doesn't give one entitlement to free parking. That is the key point.

stetan:

limlim:

Since you brought up the topic of JD, so what, exactly, is the JD of teachers?

If the role of teachers is to educate, then, in their professional capacity, anything related to fulfilling their job obligations is part of their duty and not considered additional work. This includes extra coaching hours (if necessary) and bringing students on field trips.

I am not asking for your personal interpretation of what a teacher should do.

I am referring to an official JD for teacher by MOE.

You are the one who has been commenting that teachers are overworked beyond their JD, so why not you provide the so-called JD(if there is any to began with)?

If there never was any official JD, then, you have no case of demanding teachers be compensated for \"additional education related activities\" outside of JD based on the clean wage policy.

In any case, I refer to the following from MOE
\" You equip students with essential skills and sound values to prepare them for life. You inspire and instill the joy of learning, making lessons fun, relevant and authentic.\"

Based on the description, as a profession, any activities including extra coaching for students and organizing field trip all fall under the job obligations, and there is NO case for additional compensation under clean wage policy.

GinMocca:

limlim:

[quote=\"GinMocca\"]

No. I am saying HDB dwellers are already heavily subsidised in flat costs, constituency charges, gst e.t.c. There should not be subsidies anymore for parking. The word is subsidy

Refer to MotherHen's post. She say she is upset about the parking charges because school is not a commercial entity.

I just want to say, charging for parking has nothing to do with whether it is a commercial entity.

You comment is totally irrelevant to the point of discussion, which is about commercial entity and not subsidy.

Or you want to talk about non-driving teachers subsidizing the luxury of teachers who drive? Since you are the one who bought up the topic of subsidy again which some of us is trying to avoid.. :evil:

the example you brought up is irrelevant as it is subsidized housing and thus there is no justification for it to enjoy free parking anymore. It is not a neutral example[/quote]Subsidized or not, it is still a non commercial entity, which is the key point bought up in MotherHen's post. And I was replying to her post.

Unless she wants to edit her post and say \"charging for parking feels wrong because it is a non-commercial and is not like subsidized HDB entity\". lol..It's not a simple case of being non-commercial, you must put in all the caveats if you want to use that in your line of argument.

This would be a good discussion topic for the next GE.


What is the gov going to do about it, and what suggestions does the opposition have or what is their views on this? :evil:

stetan:

limlim:

[quote=\"stetan\"]
Clean Wage policy dictate that all hidden costs must be properly accounted for or they are \" are tantamount to providing hidden subsidies\". Free Parking is a hidden costs to MOE and it must be accounted for. Additional duties not specified in JD by teachers are also hidden costs and likewise must be accounted for.

Are there actually any defined JD of teachers?

Are you saying there is no JD for teacher?[/quote]Since you brought up the topic of JD, so what, exactly, is the JD of teachers?

If the role of teachers is to educate, then, in their professional capacity, anything related to fulfilling their job obligations is part of their duty and not considered additional work. This includes extra coaching hours (if necessary) and bringing students on field trips.

GinMocca:

limlim:

So in essence you acknowledged that by not a commercial entity, it doesn't mean that one should not be charged for parking, since the keyword is commercial entity.

To put it in another way, it does not have to be a commercial entity to charge for parking. So paying for parking has nothing to do with being commercial or not.

No. I am saying HDB dwellers are already heavily subsidised in flat costs, constituency charges, gst e.t.c. There should not be subsidies anymore for parking. The word is subsidy

Refer to MotherHen's post. She say she is upset about the parking charges because school is not a commercial entity.

I just want to say, charging for parking has nothing to do with whether it is a commercial entity.

You comment is totally irrelevant to the point of discussion, which is about commercial entity and not subsidy.

Or you want to talk about non-driving teachers subsidizing the luxury of teachers who drive? Since you are the one who bought up the topic of subsidy again which some of us is trying to avoid.. :evil:

GinMocca:

limlim:

[quote=\"MotherHen\"]
I am uncomfortable simply because I have never perceived the school to be a commercial entity or commercial building. Yes, it is State land, granted to build a place where people come to learn and grow. There are no commercial outfits like restaurants in schools to generate profit, and in fact our children do not even pay school fees. So I've never thought of parking as a \"privilege\" for teachers. In fact, I do not even think of it as \"free\" and in association, as a hidden benefit in teachers' wages. So, I suppose I am just a bit sad that we are attaching a monetary value to everything.

Is HDB housing a commercial entity? Why do residents need to pay for parking in HDB carpark?

.

Because it is subsidized housing by the government and you already enjoys many subsidies in in a HDB flat that private dwellers do not.[/quote]So in essence you acknowledged that by not a commercial entity, it doesn't mean that one should not be charged for parking, since the keyword is commercial entity.

To put it in another way, it does not have to be a commercial entity to charge for parking. So paying for parking has nothing to do with being commercial or not.

stetan:

Clean Wage policy dictate that all hidden costs must be properly accounted for or they are \" are tantamount to providing hidden subsidies\". Free Parking is a hidden costs to MOE and it must be accounted for. Additional duties not specified in JD by teachers are also hidden costs and likewise must be accounted for.

Are there actually any defined JD of teachers?