Originally posted by TCH05:EarlNeo,
If Singapore government implement minimum wages and restrict foreign workers to compete for low skill job in this year's budget, dont you think it will bring more inflation problem for the poor and aging population?
As for healthcare, I believe Singapore has one of the best healthcare system in world. Athough it is not the cheapest, but I believe it is one of the most value for money in terms of accessibility and quality.
When you say HDB flats are out of reach for middle class, are you referring to those in prime district. In terms of facilities and quality, how would you rank singapore HDB to public housing in other countries?
quote: As for healthcare, I believe Singapore has one of the best healthcare system in world. Although it is not the cheapest, but I believe it is one of the most value for money in terms of accessibility and quality.
To the poor, having a cheapo healthcare is always better then having one of the best but out of reach? But then again, why does healthcare need to be expensive in the first place? Think in term of GST. Wasn’t it there so that those willing to spend more fork out more in term of taxation on thing they crave to have rather then on necessity? Why do u have to include GST on healthcare too? Healthcare purchase equipment? Healthcare expenses aren’t something that we can avoid. If we are sick, we have to need the service, period.
quote: When you say HDB flats are out of reach for middle class, are you referring to those in prime district. In terms of facilities and quality, how would you rank singapore HDB to public housing in other countries?
Are u telling me that gov don’t earn for each HDB flat sold? How much does it take to construct a unit of HDB flat? Is construction it in the outskirt any more expensive then constructing it near the town? What is being done to the profit generate from HDB sale of flat in those prime district? Does it goes to the subsidies of flat sold in the outskirt, thus making it alot more cheaper then the construction cost? If it the can increase the cost of prime location 10 fold of it construction cost, why cant they reduce the cost of those in the outskirt way below the cost price? Afterall, the purpose of HDB is lower cost affordable housing for every s'porean?
quote: If Singapore government implement minimum wages and restrict foreign workers to compete for low skill job in this year's budget, dont you think it will bring more inflation problem for the poor and aging population?
If u think of foreign worker a source of cheap labour? Why dun we replace all the poor, lower class job with foreign worker? After all, why employ a s'porean when u can just employed a foreigner which are way cheaper and do the work just as good? Wouldnt all s'porean be rich with no poor s'porean?
Implementing mini wages is a form of human right protection that help prevent the exploitation of the lower class by the richer one. Dun forget, now that the poor class are being better compensated by their job, hence better equiped with higher spending ability to cope the inflation. On the other hand, a mini wages will significantly reduce the rich ppl profit. Increase in labour cost, hence making us less completive globally? So our wise leaders choose to build our wealth at the suffering of the poor and lower class. Just another classic example like china. Ever wonder what law we have to preventing any company from flooding our country with cheaper foreign worker? Are there any solution to higher labour cost? Look at how the europe done it? But sadly, higher labour cost = slower growth, but defiantly not higher inflation.
Wah uncle neo bo zho gang. tsk tsk tsk...
Originally posted by TCH05:No, I am not in favour off ALL the government policies, however I do not blame the government on why I cant make as much money as others.
The government policis is always to take care of the average singaporeans either directly (putting money into their hand) or indirectly (creating job, education and opportunities) because rich people doesnt need government's help and they are capable to helping themselves. Plus, PAP doesnt need their vote either because they are all living in uncontested district.
Several reasons why we are seeing a widening income gap in Singapore because
a) Booming banking and wealth management industry which benefited Singaporeans, including those belongs to low income family working in the industry
b) Home owners of enbloc properties (include people who are cash poor) who become sudden millionaire
c) There is a influx of HNWI into Singapore because of Singapore favourable tax structure (Singapore government didnt make them millionaire and they made their money overseas before the come to singapore)
d) People who speculated on stocks and properties.
Singapore income inequility might be similar to philippines, but Singapore lower income is definitely living in better condition than those poor in filipinos.
Singapore will continue to prosperous as long as Singaporeans are still motivated to be sucessful and its our government job to ensure that they provide Singaporeans the opportunities and tools to do so.
Government doesnt force older people to works, they only ensure that if you need to work, employer cannot reject you.
You just mention the mean of how people can get rich. But how many can
truly achieve that? What happen to those left behind? Dun they deserve to be
look after by the gov? If so, does our gov's policy ensure their welfare? If
the older people doesnt need to work at old age, do u think the gov need to
come up with an older retirement age or force annuity? Why is it that ppl in
this category cant look after themselves when they are old?
The reason is simply, coz spore is run by pro business leaders with priorities in economic growth. With laws the rules that only take care of the rich's pokect. The side effect of that is ton of poor folk, barely able to self feed when gotten old and usless. Most of the lower class are honest folk that once put in 44hrs or more per week till old ages prevent them from doing so. What or how does our gov treat them when their CPF cant feed them? Give them the golden opportunity to work more at the age of 70+ at mere $3.50 at some fast food rest or hawker/ food cout?
Originally posted by soleachip:Wah uncle neo bo zho gang. tsk tsk tsk...
I dun think my boss know i surf here.... hope not... else u might have to buy me drink next time instead.
Just food for thought:
Nov 23, 2006
Mixing welfare and elitism in
Singapore
By Alex Au
SINGAPORE - Is Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong moving to soften the island state's
time-tested capitalist credentials with state
welfare policies for the poor?
Growing
economic inequality has put Lee to the political
test, one that is challenging his economic
lieutenants to devise ways to redistribute
national wealth consistent with Singapore's strong
laissez-faire capitalist tradition. The formula
they've arrived at, however, seems likely to widen
rather than bridge the divide.
In
mid-November, Lee announced government plans to
raise the
goods and service tax (GST)
from 5% to 7%. The tax hike is designed to
generate about S$1.5 billion (US$960 million)
annually, funds that will be earmarked to develop
a more generous social safety net. "It's essential
for us to tilt the balance [of spending] in favor
of lower-income Singaporeans because globalization
is going to strain our social compact," Lee said
upon announcing the policy.
It was an
unusually candid admission for the leader of the
ruling People's Action Party (PAP), the political
machine that Lee's father, former premier and
current Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew, founded and
that has ruled Singapore uninterrupted since the
country's founding in 1959. Strict adherence to
neo-liberal economic prescriptions and policy
promotion of an export-oriented economy
contributed to Singapore's emergence as one of
Asia's richest countries in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, it appears those same policies are
disproportionately lifting the top tier of society
while leaving a growing number of lower-wage
earners in the economic lurch. That trend arguably
began with the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis
when, government statistics show, the wages of
lower-skilled workers fell by about one-third.
Despite economic recovery, the income gap
has continued to widen as Singapore's past
advantage in manufacturing industries has been
eroded by China and other lower-cost countries in
the region. Over the past five years, about 20% of
Singapore's households have suffered from
declining incomes. And that's arguably starting to
take a toll on the PAP's popularity.
Political reaction
Prime
Minister Lee's pronouncements and policies are
clearly a reaction to those shifting perceptions.
Details of the various proposed new welfare
schemes - known provisionally as "offset packages"
- will be announced in February along with the
state budget. Indications are that existing modest
schemes to subsidize elderly health care, housing
and education will be topped up and many new
welfare schemes introduced.
Lee has said
that the so-called "workfare bonus" - an
unprecedented cash payout to low-wage earners
introduced as a one-off measure just weeks before
last May's general election - would be employed to
redistribute government budget surpluses back to
taxpayers.
The PAP in the run-up to the
polls doled out S$150 million of bonuses to about
330,000 low-wage earners, representing about 9% of
Singapore's population of citizens and permanent
residents. That payout anticipated but didn't
blunt opposition parties' class-oriented attacks
against the PAP-dominated government, claiming it
systematically neglected the island state's many
low-wage earners.
The PAP won those polls
handily, capturing 82 of 84 parliamentary seats -
though the weak opposition has since the 1980s
claimed that the election system is structured and
regulated in ways that inhibit small parties from
fielding candidates, including the requirement
that parties must assemble an ethnically balanced
six-member committee to contest some electoral
constituencies.
Yet the prickly
income-inequality issue was quickly resurrected
one month after the elections when a blogger
writing under the pseudonym Mr Brown pointedly
asked why official data that showed that 20% of
national households were suffering from declining
incomes were released after rather than before the
general polls.
For his pains, Mr Brown's
regular column in the government-owned Today
newspaper was brusquely terminated - fueling
outrage in Internet chat rooms about the
government's heavy-handedness and apparent lack of
transparency. Meanwhile, the PAP-led government
proposed this month to tighten laws that govern
the Internet as part of an overhaul of the
national penal code.
The proposed
amendments would hold Internet users liable for
statements the government deemed to "cause public
mischief" or "wound racial feelings". If passed,
the legislation would appear to institutionalize
the ban on posting inflammatory political content
the government enforced temporarily in the run-up
to this year's polls and would give it broad new
powers to curtail freedom of expression.
It's unclear whether public debates over
the Internet about the GST rise would be
considered "mischievous" under the proposed new
rules. Some commentators have already dared to
note that raising the consumption tax is by
definition regressive and will hit poor households
harder than rich ones as they are forced to spend
a greater proportion of their income on
tax-inflated necessities.
The Singapore
Chinese Chamber of Commerce, a grouping of about
4,000 mostly small businesses, likewise took the
chance to express its "great concern and
disappointment" about the tax hike. That's because
the policy has the dual purpose of also covering
the expected shortfall in tax revenues that will
occur when the government cuts corporate-tax rates
from their current level of 20%. It has not yet
been announced when the new lower tax rate will
take effect, but Singapore is under growing
competitive pressure to reduce its tax rates to
remain attractive to foreign investors.
To
justify his government's corporate-tax cut, Lee
recently said in parliament that developing Baltic
nations such as Latvia and Lithuania levy a flat
15% tax on corporations. More to the competitive
point, Hong Kong's top personal income-tax rate is
currently 16%, a full 4 percentage points lower
than Singapore's rate.
"Such a reduction
would only benefit profitable companies and not
the significant majority of small and medium-sized
enterprises which have to contend with high
business overheads and a dwindling bottom line,"
the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce said in
a statement.
The unspoken subtext is that
raising the GST while cutting corporate taxes will
in effect shift the tax burden from big companies
to ordinary citizens, particularly lower-income
Singaporeans, some commentators say.
While
the details of the promised new welfare schemes
are still pending, the PAP-led government is
headed into an uncharted and difficult
interventionist direction.
On the surface,
Lee's government appears to have shaken its
historical aversion to welfare schemes and taken
on board providing long-term state assistance to a
large cross section of the population. Singapore
currently does not impose minimum wages, nor are
there state-backed pension plans as in many
Western countries. In nanny-state fashion, each
Singaporean is currently compelled by law to set
aside a certain proportion of his or her income
for retirement purposes.
The government
insists it will fashion the new assistance schemes
in a way that avoids institutionalizing the
economic lethargy and dependence inherent in
Western welfare systems. Lee recently told
parliament: "I would like to caution members that
we should proceed with care ... it is a real
slippery slope. And many, many social-welfare
schemes which have ended up in serious trouble
have started off with good intentions."
Notwithstanding those words, the scale of
the proposed changes suggests a fundamental
philosophical shift for the PAP. That's largely
because the growing chorus of complaints about the
widening income gap has grown politically too loud
to ignore.
Entrenched elitism
The issue is also significantly tied to
growing public perceptions about elitism among PAP
members of parliament (MPs) and their family
members - a perceived social arrogance and
economic selfishness that increasingly sticks in
the craw of many Singaporeans, particularly among
low-wage earners.
Sin Boon Ann, a PAP MP,
recently highlighted the danger of class conflict
in a speech to parliament. "The perception exists
that Singapore is a society bifurcated between the
elites and the commoners, the scholars and the
normal streams, the gifted and the ordinary, the
[public housing] dwellers and the private property
owner, the rich and the poor," the parliamentarian
said. It is necessary to "break down the
institution of snobbery within our society", he
said.
He spoke amid a surge in
cyber-criticism aimed at PAP MP Wee Siew Kim. In a
now-famous exchange in Singapore's vibrant
blogosphere, Derek Wee (no relation to the
parliamentarian) wrote in his blog on October 12
about his economic insecurities as he approached
middle age. He opined that Singapore's liberal
immigration policies were putting his job at risk,
and he urged the government to be more
understanding of ordinary citizens' plight.
An 18-year-old girl in her own blog
replied and disparaged Derek Wee's concerns,
saying, "If you're not good enough, life will kick
you in the balls ... There's no point in
lambasting the government for making our society
one that is, I quote, 'far too
survival-of-fittest'.
"If uncertainty of
success offends you so much, you will certainly be
poor and miserable," the young blogger added. She
went on to refer to Derek Wee as "one of many
wretched, under-motivated, over-assuming leeches
in our country", and rounded off her attack by
telling him to "get out of my elite uncaring
face".
It was quickly discovered that the
girl, Wee Shu Min, was the daughter of a
less-known PAP MP, demonstrating to many Internet
users that Singapore's highly touted meritocracy
was being undermined by an intolerant elitism at
the top. Her name, "Wee Shu Min", rocketed to the
top of keyword searches in Singapore as measured
by Technorati.com.
Her father, Wee Siew
Kim, later unapologetically waded into the
controversy. "I think if you cut through the
insensitivity of the language, her basic point is
reasonable," he told the government-controlled
Straits Times newspaper, adding: "Some people
cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of
language, so she ought to learn from it."
It is against this ferment that Lee's
government is now emphasizing the need for
long-term social support for the poor, and at the
same time moving to curtail political debate over
the Internet. Yet Lee's tax reforms and welfare
promises are unlikely to bridge quickly the divide
between his government and its low-income
constituents. It's an issue that promises to
dominate Singapore's popular discourse and give
Lee political headaches for years to come.
Alex Au is an independent social
and political commentator and freelance writer
based in Singapore. He often speaks at public
forums on politics, culture and gay issues.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved.)
PS: Bang gang liao. Wait I research some more tomorrow continue.
I haven't been paying attention to the budget previously.
However my assumption is that it is used to fund policy.
For example if the government believes there should be more computers in public schools, they would set the budget for education accordingly. Or if they felt that teacher'ss salaries needed to be increased to keep up the number of teachers from leaving to join the private sector etc.
Simply setting aside money for education without a policy to back it up may result in the money going to other things like beautiful gardens or expensive decorative sculptures.
Even if there was a policy, eg computers, the schools may purchase expensive specialized equipment and limit it's use to a few students or buy generic computers and and allow access to as many students as possible.
I think looking at the budget without looking at the policies that shape it is pretty pointless.
LoL.. i cant imagine i am staying back in office just to read ur posting!!!! Something is really wrong with my life. Or the lack of it... sigh...
Well, i just need to know the justification behind the super duper overpaid 20% increment in their millions salary.
What have they done? I mean REAL example of how they helped singaporeans.
bearing in mind that erp increase to help us buy car is NOT an example.
Increasing GST to sponser the low-paid citizen but taking it back from them in months is not either.
Increasing transportation cost, but with no increase in drivers pay, except the million dollar ministers + the board.
judging from the very artificial report that COMFORT just release for the public, showing that the cabbies under them profit increase due to their hike, i predict hiring cost for cab drivers would come, sooner or later.
the report is so dam* artificial and made up. I worked before in a bank and the reports generated are beautified in some way of another. like showing the top 5% investment and saying that the profit increase..etc etc etc.. (but hiding the fact that the 95% investment profit declined, or losses)
nothing but gimmicks. pui.
our ministers should become magicians, they can easier make something appear out of nothing. i felt so sad for copperfield or criss angel.
Originally posted by extrinsic:Well, i just need to know the justification behind the super duper overpaid 20% increment in their millions salary.
What have they done? I mean REAL example of how they helped singaporeans.
bearing in mind that erp increase to help us buy car is NOT an example.
Increasing GST to sponser the low-paid citizen but taking it back from them in months is not either.
Increasing transportation cost, but with no increase in drivers pay, except the million dollar ministers + the board.
judging from the very artificial report that COMFORT just release for the public, showing that the cabbies under them profit increase due to their hike, i predict hiring cost for cab drivers would come, sooner or later.
the report is so dam* artificial and made up. I worked before in a bank and the reports generated are beautified in some way of another. like showing the top 5% investment and saying that the profit increase..etc etc etc.. (but hiding the fact that the 95% investment profit declined, or losses)
nothing but gimmicks. pui.
our ministers should become magicians, they can easier make something appear out of nothing. i felt so sad for copperfield or criss angel.
Please dun shame the magician by comparing them to our MP. At least the magician entertains us. They dun even bother to entertain us with their broad day light scam that they r pulling over eyes. I mean, if u wanna scam, dun we deserve some dignity that u at least try to do it behind our back? Kinda mocking us that we cant think or join the dot!
I believe there is already a thread specially dedicated for minister salary and I dont think we have to repeat that discussion a 1001 time.
Originally posted by TCH05:I believe there is already a thread specially dedicated for minister salary and I dont think we have to repeat that discussion a 1001 time.
True and i agree.
Then let just talk about their policies. The used of budget to solve issue such as wellfare, gst, low cost housing, widening of income gap, inflation?
Originally posted by EarlNeo:
True and i agree.
Then let just talk about their policies. The used of budget to solve issue such as wellfare, gst, low cost housing, widening of income gap, inflation?
I believe this is the first budget after the GST hike and I think the government should finish last year with a surplus again because of the booming property industry and revenue related to tourism and income tax.
I am pretty sure the hot topic of discussion will be how to fund the aggressive MRT rail expansion which government annouced recently. I think drivers will have to be prepared to pay more for ERP because that seems to be the only growing revenue for LTA at the moment.
I hope government will offer more scholarship and funding for post grad education. In time for recession (if it happen) it will be the best time to study.
After reading the cut and paste of Alex Au's article. I think the PAP had better look into Mr. Wee Siew Kim's remarks.
If the government backs him while this controversy is going on, they're likely to lose a lot of sympathy and erode the faith of the people that they are working so hard for.
And that may translate to lost votes.
In the first place, the money comes from our tax-payer's hard-earned money. I see only money returning to the payers and we will be returning back to the government when we are paying their taxes. In th end, It is just one cycle and on and on. So it is actually no gain or no much loss balance kind of thing.
Well, it still is better than nothing.
Originally posted by Isis:In the first place, the money comes from our tax-payer's hard-earned money. I see only money returning to the payers and we will be returning back to the government when we are paying their taxes. In th end, It is just one cycle and on and on. So it is actually no gain or no much loss balance kind of thing.
Well, it still is better than nothing.
Government collect taxes from PR, FT, Singaporean,tourist, corporation etc etc, but the freebies given usually only benefit Singaporeans.
It is not a zero sum game
Originally posted by TCH05:
Government collect taxes from PR, FT, Singaporean,tourist, corporation etc etc, but the freebies given usually only benefit Singaporeans.
It is not a zero sum game
yup it isn't loh and it depends. I just know that the increasing cost of living is going to kill me and i probably have to work myself to death.. cos of the lack of baby boomers in the current era