The Self-Serving Singapore Government
-
HI folks,
Came across an interesting abstract from an online magazine, the Quarterly Literary Review Singapore (October 2003 edition). I've cut and pasted it below for our collective edification.
It brings together evidence which appears to me to strongly demonstrate the self-serving nature of government policies in this day and age, and how this often involves screwing the people over.
Of course, we know all this, but I'm just putting forward more hard evidence. I'm particularly impressed by the fact that the original writer managed to find a report (which of course the Straits Times never told us about) from investment bank UBS Warburg and follow-ups from local financial institutions that criticise the CPF cuts and GST hikes as ineffective and possibly corruptly motivated or instigated.
There's compelling evidence about how the CPF cuts were encouraged by foreign MNCs trying to exploit us.
For brevity's sake, I've edited out parts of the article that discuss foreign governments or are just a bit long winded. Which is not to say that these bits are not informative or useful, just that I don't want to post too long an article. Those of you who wish to read the full article for yourself can access it at:
http://www.qlrs.com/issues/oct2003/editorial/ev3n1.html
--------------------------
[quote begins]
symptomatic of a wider movement in governments that care less about their people than about their corporates and elites.
(section edited out - discussion of US politics)
Consider the latest round of CPF cuts announced in August and implemented this month. The stated purpose of the cuts is to keep Singapore competitive as a business location vis-Ã -vis countries such as China and India.
(edited)
Here's a research report on the economic outlook for Singapore in the fourth quarter of 2003, by Swiss banking group UBS:
Another factor that needs to be considered are the recent changes to the CPF scheme to ensure competitive labour costs. Assuming that loss in long-term savings in household incomes is met entirely by a commensurate reduction in household consumption, the impact is likely to be significant [...] At the same time, we are uncertain whether these moves will create jobs or even stabilise the labour market. Our understanding is that these changes have been introduced mainly to retain competitiveness vis-Ã -vis China and India. However, we estimate that wage differentials with these countries are too significant to be altered by the proposed changes. As regards other countries, relative unit labour costs suggest that Singapore is already quite competitive and therefore, incremental gains are likely to be limited.
To these developments, we can add the government's steadfastness to go ahead with the pending 1% increase in GST in 2004. Assuming that the household sector alone bears this increase, we estimate it would imply a transfer of around S$350m from the household to the government sector. While this amounts to only 0.5% of overall consumption expenditure in Singapore, the point to note is that it further suppresses an already low consumption to GDP ratio of around 40%.
UBS's opinion is clearly that both policies may do Singapore more harm than good; in fact, they subtitled the CPF cut as a "problem". Local stockbroking house GK Goh, who issued a report the day after the announcement of the CPF changes, on 29th August, was more pointed on the directions that these implied:
...wages account for 20-30% of total business costs. Thus far, the burden of keeping Singapore competitive has fallen on workers. So the question is whether future changes will extend to the other 70-80% of business costs, which include numerous government fees and levies. At this juncture, it seems that the government has yet to demonstrate its willingness to make the same sacrifices that it is now asking of its citizens.
On the same day, Jake van der Kamp of the South China Morning Post practically laughed in Singaporeans' faces:
There will be a transfer of wealth from the people who worked for it to the multinational corporations (MNCs). This could be excusable if these MNCs then invested the money back in Singapore but the difficulty is capital investment in Singapore is dropping faster than a rock in freefall and has never been lower than it is now, relative to the size of the economy. The MNCs are mostly in exit mode now. They will not put the money back into Singapore.
The foreign angle could be an especially touchy one at this point. Another correspondent of mine asked if the general reaction was xenophobic in any way. I said no, there was plenty enough to be unhappy about in what is really a domestic issue, that of the contract between the government and the people. From a personal perspective, I'm pissed that I've put in a lot of effort into developing and running a company that has turned profitable and created jobs for Singaporeans and the government gives me a pay cut "in the interests of saving jobs". That these cuts are meant to save money for foreign MNCs who are generally perceived to be in take-the-money-and-run mode, which would represent a transfer of wealth from Singapore nationals to foreign interests. That the recommendation for these cuts for the local labour force comes from a foreign consultancy that has polled expats who are unaffected by the cuts but stand to gain from higher bonuses that come with a healthier bottomline, in other words another transfer of wealth from Singapore nationals to foreign nationals. That the civil servants who have gone along with this scheme are relatively unaffected as the Admin Service accrues pensions outside of the CPF, and it was shortly after announced that the civil service will get another half-month bonus this year on top of what they had got last year [...] If the foreign angle comes in at all, it's only because that's the sweet spot I'd like to be in: to be foreign talent living and working in Singapore.
*
The best analogy for Singapore's foreign talent situation, to my mind, is the English Premier League. Before Johnny Bosman challenged the UEFA transfer system in European Union courts, English football clubs could only field a maximum of three foreign players a team. After Bosman, there was no limitation to the number of foreigners who could be fielded so long as they held an EU passport. English teams began recruiting more and more foreign players. Today, it's not uncommon to find English football clubs taking to the field with no English players in the starting XI. The standard of play in Stamford Bridge, Highbury and the Riverside has improved, but lots of young English players coming up through the academies only get to play in reserve teams, because it's so much easier to buy an accomplished player from overseas than to blood your own youth team. There's nothing morally wrong with this, of course, but then England now has to deal with its national team having only one really good striker, one striker with promise, one passably good midfielder, only one left-footed player, and lots of dross.
[quote ends] -
thats what i thought about the cpf and gst too.......
-
Another example of PAP policies is killing low and middle class spore citizen. PAP only take care of rich and foreign talent and when u ask PAP to reduce their income to save our CPF they will only give one word 'NO'.Even some of the good PAP MP like Dr Amy Khor cannot stand it own party action and stand up to criticise the CPF cut as betrayal of spore citizen.
Remember our dear president ' Ong Teng Cheong' who suggest to use the national reserve to help spore to prevent this kind of rubbish from happening!He was immediately criticise by PAP senior members and PM and was silence. The next thing we know is he will not continue as the president for the next term and the role of president was redefined to just hosting tea with foreign minister! Which is what Mr Nathan doing!
CUT,CUT,CUT! We will cut PAP next time! 2007 pls come quickly! -
So, Subadei,
What do you suggest the government do to change the current structure of our savings?
Countries like Germany, France, England and USA are experiencing painful economic changes due to changes in demographics. Pension funds that baby boomers are promised when younger are now being realized and this is going to cost the government. These governments are now having problems fulfilling their promises. Money has to be cough out from the government somewhere. But exactly where will the governments get the money from? Taxes of course! With the decreasing population base, increasing the income of the country without increasing the taxes will be ... a real challenge. Singapore is or will be experiencing the same phases. However, contrary to pupolar believe, the government did not screw this one up.
CPF ensures the people will have enough money and will not need to rely on governnment pensions for their retirement. This releases the financial stresses on the country. It is a known fact that pension systems are going to cost countries millions of dollars that will have to come up from somewhere(more taxes maybe?)
From this viewpoint, CPF is not endangering the expansion or the growth capability of Singapore. In fact, they safe guard longterm fisical health of the country, by making the people save enough for themselves! How would you like to pay for more taxes just to fulfil the government's promise?
What would you have suggested otherwise?
-
Well say! CPF ensure our retirement is a good one and now they lower our CPF to make our retirement not that retirement! So the government is exploiting us! REMEMBER, even they r own PAP MP also against the CPF cut,the MP inside the PAP know what is the situation.They know that the cut is some sort of exploitation of us.Because MP Amy Kor still got some conscience which prick her to speak up for the majority of sporean.R u against us or with us,doyoubelieve? I think u have not understand Subudei article!
-
Ask yourself why did they reduce CPF? Why did they do it? Were their reasons just?Originally posted by zenden9:Well say! CPF ensure our retirement is a good one and now they lower our CPF to make our retirement not that retirement! So the government is exploiting us! REMEMBER, even they r own PAP MP also against the CPF cut,the MP inside the PAP know what is the situation.They know that the cut is some sort of exploitation of us.Because MP Amy Kor still got some conscience which prick her to speak up for the majority of sporean.R u against us or with us,doyoubelieve? I think u have not understand Subumei article! -
So, doyoubelieve,Originally posted by doyoubelieve:So, Subadei,
What do you suggest the government do to change the current structure of our savings?
Countries like Germany, France, England and USA are experiencing painful economic changes due to changes in demographics. Pension funds that
[etc etc etc and all that other crap]
Apart from demonstrating the most unfortunate fact that you can't even spell properly, it's also readily apparent that you cannot read, either.
You didn't even bother reading the text of my post did you, vacuum-brain? That much is fairly obvious. If you had read it and understood it, you would have realised that it was NOT a challenge to the fundamental rationale for the CPF, NOR had it anything to do with, of all things, bloody pensions! Nobody was bloody talking about pensions or social security arrangements in developed economies. No doubt you were so blindly intent on showing off your 'knowledge' (ahem, ahem...) about pensions that you didn't even bloody realise that it was completely irrelevant to the discussion!
The article I posted does NOT challenge the rationale for CPF. It certainly does NOT wander anywhere near the topic of pensions. What it DOES do is challenge the recent CPF cuts in light of the Gahmen's justification of them as being essential to cost-cutting, when authoritative voices in the financial sector have argued that the weight of cost-cutting should fall on Gahmen taxes and other charges.
Get that through your thick skull, vacuum brain. -
Pertinent points, and those are exactly the ones which I sought to address by posting that article.Originally posted by :Ask yourself why did they reduce CPF? Why did they do it? Were their reasons just?
Of course, twats like vacuum-brained (that label is gonna stick) doyoubelieve don't seem to get that.
BTW, doyoubelieve...deeply ironic is the signature you use..."think"....haha...yes, you really should try doing that some time, it might help... -
where's panja when you need him?
we could do with some name calling like " pap rats and dogs" right now 
-
haha...panja got sick fo the pseudo anti-PAP pple here and the PAP dogs, so he moved house to SIntercom, wehre he resumed his "PAP Policies killing SIgnaporeans" thread. apparently, he ahs much more support there!Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:where's panja when you need him? we could do with some name calling like " pap rats and dogs" right now
Subduei, i suggest you go there as well.
the amused pikamaster -
to cut costs, and supposedly to keep our economy competitive and benefit teh workers. but even after these cost-cutting measures, it seems that retrenchments are still takign place, and suicides are still occurring... anyway, they only reduced the employer's contribution, not the worker's adn set a minimum sum or something that you need to have before being eligible to withdraw cash.Originally posted by :Ask yourself why did they reduce CPF? Why did they do it? Were their reasons just?
nope, the reasons are obviously unjust!
the disbelieving pikamaster -
Sorry, pika...I do lose my cool when confronted with utter stupidity.Originally posted by pikamaster:Subduei, i suggest you go there as well.
the amused pikamaster
Unlike panja, I don't just rant blindly and indiscriminately though, even when I'm quite obviously ticked off...if you've found any logical / factual problems with my rebuttals (disregarding the personal insults - I think personal insults are the norm on these boards anyway), do point them out. But I think it's quite telling that you've voiced general agreement with my conclusions yourself. -
He was banned and force to go there! I admit he is more popular at there!Originally posted by pikamaster:haha...panja got sick fo the pseudo anti-PAP pple here and the PAP dogs, so he moved house to SIntercom, wehre he resumed his "PAP Policies killing SIgnaporeans" thread. apparently, he ahs much more support there!
Subduei, i suggest you go there as well.
the amused pikamaster -
Subadei,
Ops! Guess I screwed up on that one!
You were right! I did not finish reading the whole page. I appologise for my "vacuum-headness(?)".
Only one half of your entry on the page was loaded and the misunderstanding sprung up from there.
Again, I apologise for my...unreasoned outlash...[/quote]