Latest news with #MUP
The Guardian
12 hours ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Better alcohol regulation will save lives and money
You are right to argue that rising alcohol harm must be addressed in the government's 10-year health plan (The Guardian view on alcohol and public health: the drinks industry must not control the narrative, 1 June). If ministers are 'staking their reputation on economic growth', they need to deal head-on with one of the biggest drivers of premature death and lost productivity, while ignoring spurious claims made by alcohol companies whose profits have for too long trumped public health. Alcohol harm costs England at least £27bn a year – almost double what the Treasury collects in alcohol duty. These harms aren't incidental to the alcohol market; they are intrinsic to it. While the industry promotes 'moderate drinking', evidence shows that its profits and growth depend on the heaviest drinkers. It's no coincidence that Diageo's CEO recently described moderation as the industry's 'biggest disrupter'. Policies that reduce alcohol consumption are consistently shown to be sound investments, recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank and the World Health Organization. In Scotland, the introduction of minimum unit pricing (MUP) led to a 13% drop in alcohol-specific deaths and a 4% fall in hospital admissions. If adopted in England, MUP could reduce premature mortality while saving the NHS millions and help create a healthier workforce. England urgently needs a national alcohol strategy. Bold, evidence-based measures like MUP must be at its core, with commercial vested-interest groups kept at the Katherine SeveriChief executive, Institute of Alcohol Studies Your editorial reflects the serious concerns that we at World Cancer Research Fund and many other organisations have around the ineffectiveness of England's alcohol regulation. The evidence shows that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption when it comes to cancer risk. And there are around 17,000 alcohol-related cancer cases in the UK every year, as well as 200 other associated health conditions caused by alcohol. In our Cancer Prevention Action Week (23-29 June), we will showcase polling that highlights the chasm between public perception about alcohol and cancer risks. We want the public to have correct health information at their disposal so they can understand their cancer risks and make informed choices. Now is the time for direct action. The UK government urgently needs to join the dots on regulation around alcohol marketing and labelling. We urge members of the public to do their part and sign our petition to advocate with us for better regulation in England. Dr Giota Mitrou Executive director of research and policy, World Cancer Research Fund Nearly half of UK adults now drink alcohol-free products, and our research shows that 68% of them use these drinks to cut down on alcohol. But despite this momentum, outdated labelling rules are holding people back. For over a decade, governments have delayed a straightforward change: allowing drinks at or below 0.5% ABV to be labelled 'alcohol-free'. This is already the international standard and reflects the reality – drinks at this level contain no more alcohol than a ripe banana, sourdough bread or even some soft drinks. Yet UK producers are still forced to use the term 'low alcohol' for these drinks, confusing consumers and deterring many from trying WilloughbyCo-founder, Club Soda Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Online Citizen
27-05-2025
- Business
- Online Citizen
Reddit post sparks questions over transparency in NSmen make-up pay adjustment
SINGAPORE: A Reddit user has sparked public concern over a lack of transparency surrounding recent changes to the Make-Up Pay (MUP) scheme for Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen). The user, who had recently completed a two-week In-Camp Training (ICT) in May, noticed a significant discrepancy in his MUP despite a civilian pay increment. The post on 19 May 2025 raised questions about the communication and fairness of the policy change. Well-Publicised NSF Pay Hike vs. Silent NSman Adjustment The user highlighted the stark contrast in how two major policies affecting national servicemen were communicated. In March 2025, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) publicly announced an increase in the monthly allowance for full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), ranging from S$35 to S$75, set to take effect in July 2025. The announcement was widely covered by the media. In contrast, the user pointed out the lack of any official communication regarding a revision to the MUP formula for NSmen, which took effect in February 2025. He noted that there were no press releases, government announcements, or media reports concerning the change, which he found troubling. Bonuses Excluded Under New Make-Up Pay Formula The Reddit user shared his experience of receiving a lower MUP than expected, despite having received a pay increase in his civilian job. Upon contacting the NS hotline, he was informed that his Additional Wage (AW) was recorded as '$0' under the new MUP formula, as bonuses were excluded. According to the explanation provided by MINDEF, the exclusion of bonuses was based on the assumption that employers are unlikely to reduce bonuses when employees take short absences due to NS activities. MINDEF explained that the revised MUP calculation, which took effect in February 2025, adjusts the AW component by removing the two highest AW months, typically bonuses. The aim was to better estimate income loss for NSmen when attending Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS) activities. This change was introduced after feedback from employers and NSmen. 'Unjust and Unjustified': Redditor Calls for Reversal The Reddit user expressed strong dissatisfaction with the policy change, calling it 'unjust and unjustified.' He argued that the rationale behind the exclusion of bonuses was illogical and unfair. The user pointed out that someone has to bear the cost of the compensation shortfall—either the reservist employee, who would receive a smaller bonus, or the employer, who would have to pay the same bonus despite fewer work weeks. The user also criticized the lack of transparency in the implementation of the policy change. He noted that while the NSF pay increase had been publicly announced months in advance, the MUP revision affecting NSmen had not been disclosed or discussed in public. What Does This Mean for NSmen? The Reddit post included a detailed FAQ section to explain the potential consequences of the MUP changes. The user highlighted that for NSmen whose bonuses form a significant portion of their income, the exclusion of bonuses during reservist training could lead to substantial pay cuts. For example, missing out on one month's performance bonus could result in a 7% pay cut, and missing two months could lead to a 14% cut. The FAQ also addressed concerns from those under the Direct scheme, where MUP goes directly to the employer. The user warned that employers might become less inclined to pay the same bonus to reservist employees if they are absent for two weeks a year, making them less cost-efficient compared to other employees. In response to the unannounced policy change, the Reddit user encouraged others to express their concerns. He provided several ways to raise the issue, including filling out the official feedback form on the NS website, calling the NS hotline, emailing MINDEF, or writing to Members of Parliament (MPs) during Meet-the-People sessions. The user also suggested reaching out to both soial and traditional media outlets to bring more attention to the issue. He emphasized the importance of accountability for the changes and called for the revision to be reversed and backpaid. Reddit Users Weigh In on Silent Make-Up Pay Change Following the Reddit post, several users echoed concerns about the revised Make-Up Pay (MUP) scheme for Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen), calling for a broader public discussion on what they viewed as a significant and troubling policy shift. They questioned the rationale behind the exclusion of bonuses from the MUP calculation, particularly the assumption by authorities that employers are unlikely to reduce bonuses for employees taking short absences for National Service. One user highlighted the lack of public communication surrounding the change, describing it as 'extremely poor'. Another Redditor shared a personal account, stating, 'I completed my ICT recently and noticed the slight drop compared to last year as well—thanks for bringing this up.' The comment reflected a growing chorus of dissatisfaction over the silent policy adjustment and calls for greater transparency. Following the Reddit post, The Online Citizen (TOC) sent a formal letter to MINDEF on 20 May, seeking clarification over the recent changes to the MUP scheme for Operationally Ready NSmen. TOC asked why the change—implemented in February 2025—was not formally announced or communicated to the public, noting that the revised method could significantly affect payouts. TOC also asked whether the exclusion of bonuses—achieved by removing the two highest Additional Wage (AW) months from the 12-month average—marked a shift in policy. It questioned the rationale behind no longer including bonuses as part of income loss calculations. TOC further asked about the basis for MINDEF's claim that bonuses are excluded because employers are 'not likely to reduce these' during short absences for NS. It requested evidence supporting this assumption and whether there had been any consultation with employers, unions, or employee groups. TOC also asked how MINDEF assessed the potential long-term impact on employability and equity, warning that the change could lead to unintended consequences such as reduced bonuses, hindered career progression, or added burdens for employers. TOC raised concerns over the DIRECT scheme, where employers continue paying full salaries and claim reimbursement. It asked if these employers are now under-compensated and whether they were informed about the change. TOC has since reviewed past public documentation and noted that the change appears inconsistent with previously published calculation methods. As of 27 May 2025, MINDEF has not responded to TOC's queries.
