Cost of Living
-
Feb 4, 2005
Why S'poreans complain about the cost of living
By Ling Chien Yien
SEVERAL bread-and-butter issues were discussed at length in Parliament recently. The conclusion drawn was that since per capita income had grown faster than the cost of living from 1998 to 2003, it is not true that middle-income families are worse off than before. Rather it is Singaporeans' rising expectations, among other reasons, that have led them to complain.
The Government and its relevant agencies have ample resources to gather information and naturally are able to put forward arguments based on large amounts of statistical data. The public is unable to dispute the statistics. But statistics often give only a broad picture and may not reflect the real feelings of the people.
Singaporeans have for years heeded the call of the Government and worked hard to create economic wealth. It was the common hope of both the Government and the people to see their standard of living rise. Therefore, to hint now that Singaporeans' rising expectations are not absolutely necessary, and are even asking for trouble, would be an injustice to the middle- and lower-income groups.
In fact, we should ask whether, in the process of raising the standard of living, we realistically identified and addressed the high expectations of the people and the price to be paid to meet these expectations.
Given people's current income levels, did we consider whether they could afford these expectations?
Naturally, if we relentlessly seek maximum gratification, our income will never be able to match the price we need to pay for such needs, and we will be slaves to our unrealistic expectations.
In assessing policies on upgrading, we should avoid grandiose schemes so that the middle- and lower-income groups would not have to incur unnecessary expenses which lead to public grouses. Policymakers should study issues bearing in mind this point.
Let us look at living conditions from the point of view of an ordinary Singaporean.
Food prices
ACCORDING to official figures published in Zaobao, the food index rose only 2.6 per cent in the past five years. But it is difficult for an individual to grasp the true meaning of this figure. A bowl of noodles at hawker centres or food courts now costs up to $4, compared with $1.50 in the past. Is the high price due to people's excessive desire to have a good life or because they do not know how to be thrifty or cook at home?
The fact is, most working Singaporeans have no choice but to take their lunch at food courts or hawker centres. In many organisations, workers have to work late after office hours. They have no choice but to eat out or order take-aways. The 2.6 per cent increase therefore does not reflect fully the actual food expenditure of ordinary Singa- poreans.
Transport and communication
STATISTICS also show that transport and communication costs have fallen by 0.7 per cent in the last five years. Telecommunication costs have gone down as a result of fierce competition among the telcos, but benefits to the public lag behind those to companies and consortiums.
The situation would probably be less optimistic if transport and communication costs are computed separately. Public transport costs have definitely gone up significantly in recent years. Just ask anyone who takes public transport daily.
Health care
Health care costs rose 11.1 per cent in the last five years, much higher than the 2.5 per cent increase in the consumer price index (CPI).
Middle-income families are the hardest hit as they are the sandwich class and receive the least subsidies. With more government or government-aided hospitals being corporatised and privatised, outpatient and consultation fees at these hospitals have been rising.
In my own experience, consultation fees have risen from $20 many years back to the current $50, which does not include GST. It is a heavy burden to the middle-income group, especially retirees and those with chronic illnesses.
Indeed, it is difficult to retire with peace of mind in Singapore with such meagre personal and Medisave savings.
Recreation and travel
THE Government often argues that because Singaporeans holiday overseas frequently, their expectations of living standards have gone up. Hence, they really should not gripe.
I am of the view that it is a good thing that the people are able to enjoy the fruits of success, as otherwise people will lose the motivation to work hard. What is more, with life and work so pressurising here, there is little time for family life. So when families go on an occasional holiday, it is a good sign that people are unwinding. It also projects a picture of prosperity and happiness in the country.
There are reasons for Singaporeans choosing to go overseas on holiday. First, Singapore is a small country. It is natural for Singaporeans to look beyond Singapore in search of greater breathing space and freedom. Second, as opposed to frequent transport fare hikes at home, air fares have been sliding. Third, our recreational facilities are costly and limited. Hence, Singaporeans would rather drive their families to Malaysia for holidays than visit places like the Zoological Gardens, Jurong Bird Park, Sentosa or Singapore Science Centre.
The Government, while expressing its desire to promote arts and culture, is parsimonious in financing basic arts and cultural facilities. It is unwilling to look at the issue from the perspective of welfare. For instance, our museums have insisted on charging for admission, hence making these places out of reach for low-income Singaporeans. Middle-income people are willing to visit these places only once. As a result, we have splendid museums but they are shunned by Singaporeans. This is of no benefit to our cultural development.
A common justification for hikes in bus fares, MRT fares, university tuition fees and hospital charges is better service. Speaking from the heart, before the general public can even tell if there is really improvement in services, they have already felt the heavier burden of living costs.
Are we afflicted with a 'grandiose syndrome', that is, a compulsion to upgrade everything in a hurry? We have hotel-style hospitals,ostentatious university halls, opulent government buildings and buses equipped with mobile TV. These are additional burdens borne by the people who are not given a choice. Are these so-called 'high-quality' facades - which are not real needs - what Singaporeans want?
These are just a few of the many examples of the burdens felt by middle- and lower-income families. Statistics may show that growth in income is faster than increases in living costs. But in reality, the middle- and low-income families find it hard to share this optimism. Their complaints against the heavier burden of living costs and price hikes are not without reason.
-- The writer, a former Colombo Plan scholar, has worked in a public engineering department and in business organisations. This commentary first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao on Jan 28. -
Feb 4, 2005
Reply from the Prime Minister's Office
By Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to the Prime Minister
THE writer argues that Government statistics do not give an accurate picture of Singaporeans being squeezed by high costs of living. Although he did not say so, he was referring to data released by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament recently.
The writer is not alone in his perception; many Singaporeans share this view. I therefore thank him for raising the issues, and giving the Government another opportunity to explain the situation and narrow the gap of understanding.
There is no doubt that in recent years many Singaporeans have had to tighten their belts and some have faced real hardship. Some have lost their jobs, and many more have had to work extra hard to support their families. The reason has been the difficult economic conditions - salaries stagnant, overtime and bonuses down, retrenchments up, and jobs uncertain.
The Government recognised and responded to the problem. It implemented many measures to help households tide over the difficult period. We gave rebates on HDB rentals, service and conservancy charges, and utilities bills. We are helping workers to upgrade their skills, find new jobs, and get back on their feet. We are giving assistance to those who cannot work. Most importantly, we are restructuring and upgrading the economy, and have restarted growth, which will create prosperity for all.
It would not be correct to blame the difficulties that households face on the high cost of living, which in turn has resulted from government policies. Some prices have indeed risen, while others have come down. To households, no cost increase is welcome, especially in tough times. But we have to look at the overall impact of the price changes, to see how significant they have been. And to do that we have to study the statistics.
The writer is right that statistics do not tell the whole story. In their nature, statistics cannot reflect the situation of every individual or household. However, statistics do reliably summarise the reality in Singapore, because they are based on information painstakingly gathered from thousands of individual shops, hawker stalls and households. Singaporeans should not dismiss these statistics but should examine them objectively.
The writer cited examples on hawker food, public transport, health care and leisure, to show how life is getting tougher for individuals. However, his anecdotes are not representative of the actual experience of middle- and lower-income Singaporeans. If we examine the facts more carefully, we will find that for most Singaporeans, the cost of living has not risen by much.
Food prices
THE writer correctly noted that many families now eat out at hawker centres and food courts. He suspected that while food prices overall had been stable, prices of hawker food had shot up. But this is not so. Since 1998, prices of hawker food have risen by only 4.2 per cent on average, less than non-cooked food (5.6 per cent). This is confirmed by detailed information about different types of hawker food.
For example, prices of fish ball noodles increased by 2.3 per cent, mee goreng by 5.5 per cent, and chicken rice by 6.6 per cent. In many hawker centres, prices of common dishes such as prawn mee soup and char kuay teow have remained unchanged at $2.00 or $2.50.
Transport and communication
THE writer acknowledged that telecommunications services had indeed become cheaper, but he was mistaken to dismiss this as the natural result of competition which had benefited companies more than the public. This competition was the result of deliberate government policy to bring down prices and offer consumers more choices. Had the Government not done this, I doubt so many Singaporeans could have afforded handphones. Nine out of 10 households here own handphones, more than almost any other country.
The writer also questioned whether the picture was as rosy for public transport. While public transport fares have increased, the increases have been moderate. The Public Transport Council has scrutinised the increases to ensure that they were justified and affordable to commuters. Thus the average bus trip cost $1.00 in 1998 and $1.03 today, while the average MRT trip cost $1.15 in 1998 and $1.24 today.
While fares have increased, services have also improved. Before the North-east MRT Line, a typical bus journey from Sengkang to Dhoby Ghaut cost $1.23 and took 50 minutes. Now, the same journey by MRT costs $1.49 and takes 25 minutes. For 26 cents more, commuters save 25 minutes of travelling time.
For middle-income households, car prices have come down substantially. A typical 1.6-litre car cost over $100,000 in 1998, but only $65,000 now. This is a result of Government lowering upfront taxes, and investing in transport infrastructure so that we could release more COEs and allow more cars onto the roads.
Health and medical expenses
HEALTH care costs are indeed a big worry for many citizens. They have risen, but not because the restructured hospitals are chasing profits. This is a worldwide problem. Even in China, a communist country, many people cannot afford basic medical care. The basic reason is that medical science is advancing and introducing new treatments and better but more expensive drugs. At the same time, our population is ageing and needing more medical care.
In Singapore, the Government subsidises hospital bills heavily. In addition, we are revamping MediShield, doubling the Medifund from $1 billion to $2 billion, and channelling more aid to the needy. But we hope Singaporeans will take care of themselves and lead healthy lifestyles.
Avoid unnecessary spending
WE AGREE fully with the writer that public buildings should not be ostentatious, and the Government should not provide and charge the people for services which they do not need. We have tightened the budget for building government offices, and tried to make sure that we get value for each dollar the Government spends. But Singaporeans do expect better public facilities and higher standards of service, and the Government ought to deliver them. If our hospitals, schools and libraries had not improved since the 1960s, Singaporeans would justifiably be dissatisfied. As for mobile TV on buses, they do not cost commuters anything, as the project was initiated and paid for by MediaCorp.
High expectations
THE writer argued that there was nothing wrong with having higher expectations, because the whole purpose of economic growth was a better life. We agree with him. However, we need to be conscious of how our expectations have risen, and the impact of this on household expenses. For example, a major reason households are paying more for electricity is that nearly three quarters of households now have air-conditioners. The large number of Singaporeans who travel overseas each year is another sign of how our lives have changed. The writer argued that Singaporeans had to travel overseas to ease the psychological pressure of life and work in Singapore. The reasons he cited are valid, but when we start to think of overseas holidays as being an essential, rather than a luxury, it only shows how high expectations have risen.
The way forward
ALL Singaporeans hope and strive for a better life. We have achieved this for many years, even though the last few have been difficult. While costs have gone up modestly, they have not been the main reason that households have felt pressure. Nobody wants to turn back the clock to the days before air-conditioners or handphones, or when only a small minority could afford overseas travel, even though costs might have been lower then. The way forward is to create more prosperity and growth, so that Singaporeans can get better jobs, and attain the higher standards of living that we all aspire to. -
Both seems bias to me.
The author uses low end of the prices to compare with high end of the prices while the government tries to take credit for every little reduction whether it is a direct effort of their own or be it pure market movements.
Both does not seems to be listening to what the other party is saying. -
why cant they admit that cost of living has gone up.
-
that would be equivilant to the japanese government making a formal apology to WW2 victims and saying that they were indeed diabolic murderers, the entire governmental system would collapse if the people lost faith in their "infallable" governmentOriginally posted by crazy monkey:why cant they admit that cost of living has gone up. -
Saw the news on Tv News at 10pm on 4 Feb 2005. The fucking HDB's representive was interviewed by TCS. Look at the fuck ing way that he had explained; look so arrogant and ke kiang, explaining that the compensation S$48,000 to existing shop owners (in woodsland) if they were to opt out. He said the shop owners have to weigh the pros and cons whether to give up their shops and take the compensation or prefer to be relocated to new places with S$5000 given for renovation for their new shop and, of course, they shop owners have to pay their rentals base on new market rates.Originally posted by vito_corleone:that would be equivilant to the japanese government making a formal apology to WW2 victims and saying that they were indeed diabolic murderers, the entire governmental system would collapse if the people lost faith in their "infallable" government
The fucking retail business had been so bad that most of the shops are bearly can survive only, and still HDB intent to increase rental price due to ''good economy'' as declared by the fuck gahment.
If you guys have watch the Channel 8 news and Cai Chin Chui Chee at 10 pm then you will know.
If felt like putting my prick into his mouth. -
President's salary just got raised (and I'm sure the rest of government employees in the near future) so I'm sure everyone's told to increase "yields", "returns" and even "surpluses". That's truly more good years and life here!
-
The PAP administration defines "economy recovery" in a broader sense than we people on the actual ground.
Being high up in their crystal thrones (ivory towers seem a bit inept a description), the rulers can see more foreign exchange coming in. Being the happy little emperors, they decide that the economy must be recovering. Hey, after all, how can it not be, when I am seeing so much FOREX? Time to reward myself for riding out that storm! Those commoners must be lying through their teeth for welfare benefits when they told me they were suffering!
Meanwhile, locals suffer the insult of watching the emperors take home more bacon (which they pay dilligently every year) while they have yet to see the effects of any recovery.
Do you believe such an administration to be leaders of the country? I find the quick restoration of ministerial pay cuts to be hypocritical, and definitely a show of poor leadership initiative. -
It is not merely the income effect that is in play, which is what the government is talking about. In developed economies, of which Singapore now subsets, the wealth effect can override income effects.
Simply put, when people feel wealthier they are apt to spend more and when they feel poorer they will spend less, leading to increased speculation and recession correspondingly. Broadly speaking two asset classes determine the wealth effect; real estate and stocks -- the primary sources of wealth creation and saving for the average person.
Singapore has experienced negative wealth effect for some time; housing prices are down substantially, stock markets are below their long term average growth curve. even COE's are quite a bit lower -- which means people feel poorer whether their incomes have kept pace with inflation or not. Plus, people are uncertain about the growth rate of their CPF -- which appears to be accreting below benchmark asset growth -- little wonder people are feeling depressed about their personal balance sheets.
The government chooses to focus on broad-based income metrics and not focus on the wealth effect. -
*double post.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Qitai:
[b]Feb 4, 2005
Why S'poreans complain about the cost of living
By Ling Chien Yien
SEVERAL bread-and-butter issues were discussed at length in Parliament recently. The conclusion drawn was that since per capita income had grown faster than the cost of living from 1998 to 2003, it is not true that middle-income families are worse off than before. Rather it is Singaporeans' rising expectations, among other reasons, that have led them to complain.
The Government and its relevant agencies have ample resources to gather information and naturally are able to put forward arguments based on large amounts of statistical data. The public is unable to dispute the statistics. But statistics often give only a broad picture and may not reflect the real feelings of the people.
Singaporeans have for years heeded the call of the Government and worked hard to create economic wealth. It was the common hope of both the Government and the people to see their standard of living rise. Therefore, to hint now that Singaporeans' rising expectations are not absolutely necessary, and are even asking for trouble, would be an injustice to the middle- and lower-income groups.
In fact, we should ask whether, in the process of raising the standard of living, we realistically identified and addressed the high expectations of the people and the price to be paid to meet these expectations.
Given people's current income levels, did we consider whether they could afford these expectations?
Naturally, if we relentlessly seek maximum gratification, our income will never be able to match the price we need to pay for such needs, and we will be slaves to our unrealistic expectations.
In assessing policies on upgrading, we should avoid grandiose schemes so that the middle- and lower-income groups would not have to incur unnecessary expenses which lead to public grouses. Policymakers should study issues bearing in mind this point.
Let us look at living conditions from the point of view of an ordinary Singaporean.
Food prices
ACCORDING to official figures published in Zaobao, the food index rose only 2.6 per cent in the past five years. But it is difficult for an individual to grasp the true meaning of this figure. A bowl of noodles at hawker centres or food courts now costs up to $4, compared with $1.50 in the past. Is the high price due to people's excessive desire to have a good life or because they do not know how to be thrifty or cook at home?
The fact is, most working Singaporeans have no choice but to take their lunch at food courts or hawker centres. In many organisations, workers have to work late after office hours. They have no choice but to eat out or order take-aways. The 2.6 per cent increase therefore does not reflect fully the actual food expenditure of ordinary Singa- poreans.
Transport and communication
STATISTICS also show that transport and communication costs have fallen by 0.7 per cent in the last five years. Telecommunication costs have gone down as a result of fierce competition among the telcos, but benefits to the public lag behind those to companies and consortiums.
The situation would probably be less optimistic if transport and communication costs are computed separately. Public transport costs have definitely gone up significantly in recent years. Just ask anyone who takes public transport daily.
Health care
Health care costs rose 11.1 per cent in the last five years, much higher than the 2.5 per cent increase in the consumer price index (CPI).
Middle-income families are the hardest hit as they are the sandwich class and receive the least subsidies. With more government or government-aided hospitals being corporatised and privatised, outpatient and consultation fees at these hospitals have been rising.
In my own experience, consultation fees have risen from $20 many years back to the current $50, which does not include GST. It is a heavy burden to the middle-income group, especially retirees and those with chronic illnesses.
Indeed, it is difficult to retire with peace of mind in Singapore with such meagre personal and Medisave savings.
Recreation and travel
THE Government often argues that because Singaporeans holiday overseas frequently, their expectations of living standards have gone up. Hence, they really should not gripe.
I am of the view that it is a good thing that the people are able to enjoy the fruits of success, as otherwise people will lose the motivation to work hard. What is more, with life and work so pressurising here, there is little time for family life. So when families go on an occasional holiday, it is a good sign that people are unwinding. It also projects a picture of prosperity and happiness in the country.
There are reasons for Singaporeans choosing to go overseas on holiday. First, Singapore is a small country. It is natural for Singaporeans to look beyond Singapore in search of greater breathing space and freedom. Second, as opposed to frequent transport fare hikes at home, air fares have been sliding. Third, our recreational facilities are costly and limited. Hence, Singaporeans would rather drive their families to Malaysia for holidays than visit places like the Zoological Gardens, Jurong Bird Park, Sentosa or Singapore Science Centre.
The Government, while expressing its desire to promote arts and culture, is parsimonious in financing basic arts and cultural facilities. It is unwilling to look at the issue from the perspective of welfare. For instance, our museums have insisted on charging for admission, hence making these places out of reach for low-income Singaporeans. Middle-income people are willing to visit these places only once. As a result, we have splendid museums but they are shunned by Singaporeans. This is of no benefit to our cultural development.
A common justification for hikes in bus fares, MRT fares, university tuition fees and hospital charges is better service. Speaking from the heart, before the general public can even tell if there is really improvement in services, they have already felt the heavier burden of living costs.
Are we afflicted with a 'grandiose syndrome', that is, a compulsion to upgrade everything in a hurry? We have hotel-style hospitals,ostentatious university halls, opulent government buildings and buses equipped with mobile TV. These are additional burdens borne by the people who are not given a choice. Are these so-called 'high-quality' facades - which are not real needs - what Singaporeans want?
These are just a few of the many examples of the burdens felt by middle- and lower-income families. Statistics may show that growth in income is faster than increases in living costs. But in reality, the middle- and low-income families find it hard to share this optimism. Their complaints against the heavier burden of living costs and price hikes are not without reason.
-- The writer, a former Colombo Plan scholar, has worked in a public engineering department and in business organisations. This commentary first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao on Jan 28.
Simple Q & A : S'pore is too expensive, I feel like migrating with my whole family now to other country or remote island and live a simple and peaceful, stress free and noise pollution free life
-
Originally posted by juzded:
I agree that the cost of living in Singapore is too expensive. Transport and food take up most of my monthly expenses. Education is the third thing (I'm working now to save money for my poly education which I intend to go after getting my "O" levels results).
Simple Q & A: S'pore is too expensive, I feel like migrating with my whole family now to other country or remote island and live a simple and peaceful, stress free and noise pollution free life [/b]
However, before you migrate overseas, consider this first: Are you sure the country that you intend to migrate to will not become another Singapore? My father came here in the 70s at the age of 15. Then, Singapore was much better than Malaysia if I'm not wrong (paiseh I never really like to study history of Singapore). Now at the age of 40+ reaching 50 in a few years time, he regretted making the decision that time.
I'm not against the idea of people migrating overseas (my grandfather migrated to Malaysia with his father when young and my father migrated to Singapore), but do migrate only when you are sure that you can give your family a better life than they could have in this country. But given a choice, I would rather my father had returned to Malaysia after his marriage. Although we would not have been having a life like this here (Internet, whatsoever), at least, we could have more happiness, not monetarily but mentally. -
I juz like to highlight that Singapore transport and food cost is actually consider ok compared to other countries. (Of cos, u dun consider Thailand, Malaysia). Places like Australia , US and European countries have high transport cost (If you dun drive) and parking is kinda expensive too in town. During my trip last year to the US.. the prices of food there is same as SG, except it is in USD... no doubt the cost here is increasing (quality increase or not, also not sure)... we are still ok compared to many other countries.Originally posted by 01024G:I agree that the cost of living in Singapore is too expensive. Transport and food take up most of my monthly expenses. Education is the third thing (I'm working now to save money for my poly education which I intend to go after getting my "O" levels results). -
I juz like to highlight that Singapore transport and food cost is actually consider ok compared to other countries. (Of cos, u dun consider Thailand, Malaysia). Places like Australia , US and European countries have high transport cost (If you dun drive) and parking is kinda expensive too in town. During my trip last year to the US.. the prices of food there is same as SG, except it is in USD... no doubt the cost here is increasing (quality increase or not, also not sure)... we are still ok compared to many other countries.
well from my experience in aust. pub transportation that is because of the low volume of the passenger + vehicle is very cheap, petrol is much cheaper too. it is cheaper to drive a car in aust than to take public transport. so do we see singapore as a cheaper public transport system or envy them maj. as car owners.
i must admit, no country is consider the best country to live in but its time our govt admit that standard of living are indeed too much for much of the middle lower and lower income group. and the wealth gap is getting wider and wider. -
the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer..
-
food in the states is more ex IMO..plus the 15% tax and tipsOriginally posted by melancholy_cat:I juz like to highlight that Singapore transport and food cost is actually consider ok compared to other countries. (Of cos, u dun consider Thailand, Malaysia). Places like Australia , US and European countries have high transport cost (If you dun drive) and parking is kinda expensive too in town. During my trip last year to the US.. the prices of food there is same as SG, except it is in USD... no doubt the cost here is increasing (quality increase or not, also not sure)... we are still ok compared to many other countries. -
Who are the ppl debating in the Parliament ? those who holds multiple directorship in many other companies?
-
No purpose can be served by referring to indices to judge our costs of living.
Indices or statistics are too general in an open economy like Singapore for the purpose of measuring wellbeing of citizens.
A better method will be to compare costs as a percentage to disposable incomes.
As an example, the ordinary citizens of Indonesia and Malaysia have low absolute dollar incomes but many of them can get by without complaints because they hardly need to spend that kind of monies on utility, pay for high HDB prices or high costs of cars like the Singaporeans do.
In Singapore although citizens earn bigger dollar incomes than Indonesians, they will be bankrupted once they cannot pay their mortgages or any living expenses or any other bills.
The wealths or incomes represented by GDP growth in Singapore being an open economy probably accrue to GLCs, government departments, statutory boards, MNCs and private tycoons and major shareholders including foreigners.
As such, national datas or statistics on incomes or GDP growths cannot be used to measure the costs tolerance of 90 percents of citizens.
BTW, a rule of thumb method to judge financial ability of citizens is to look at business viability of SMEs (not the top 500) HDB shopkeepers, COEs or property prices.
-
A quote from Political Writer Seah Chiang Nee as published in Today Newspaper on 14.2.2005:-
"It's a very funny situation that Singapore is in now. The strong GDP showing is not reflected in the day-to-day life, in people's earning capability, quality of jobs, in HDB retailers and the small businesses." -
Originally posted by melancholy_cat:I juz like to highlight that Singapore transport and food cost is actually consider ok compared to other countries. (Of cos, u dun consider Thailand, Malaysia). Places like Australia , US and European countries have high transport cost (If you dun drive) and parking is kinda expensive too in town. During my trip last year to the US.. the prices of food there is same as SG, except it is in USD... no doubt the cost here is increasing (quality increase or not, also not sure)... we are still ok compared to many other countries. If we are considered "higher paid" (in which some case are not) than those you mention Thailand, Malaysia than why we cannot compare the transport and food cost with them.