Since this topic has been on my blog for a while, I thought I'd just add this in for completeness sake. I think the PM's gesture is to alleviate any pressure on his government for the pay increases. It's a good move I guess, since pressure has been mounting over this issue. This topic is a tired one already, and I do not wish to debate anymore about it. Case closed. Thing is, the Civil Service might be scheduled for another pay increase at the end of the year.
Read about the PM's conciliatory gesture here.
(ST, 11 April) - Ms Denise Phua (from Jalan Besar GRC) argued against using high pay to attract talent to ministerial positions. Very well thought out and easily understandable. A good read.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Singapore ministers receive ~25% increase in salary
The news is out:
- The Channelnewsasia article can be found here.
- The full ministerial statement by Mr Teo Chee Hean (Minister-in-Charge of the Civil Service) can be found here.
Stuff your face with this. Our PM will earn $3.1 million while our President will earn $3.2million. MM and SM will earn $3.04 million each.
And your dad earns the proverbial PEANUT.
- The Channelnewsasia article can be found here.
- The full ministerial statement by Mr Teo Chee Hean (Minister-in-Charge of the Civil Service) can be found here.
Stuff your face with this. Our PM will earn $3.1 million while our President will earn $3.2million. MM and SM will earn $3.04 million each.
And your dad earns the proverbial PEANUT.
Of listening to the people and the GST hike
Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, Young PAP vice-chairperson (Women's Wing) on "Countdown to the 2% GST hike, Ministerial and Civil Service Pay Increments".
I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.
------------
Hi EOC,
I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.
I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.
Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.
As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?
Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.
Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)
However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.
I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.
------------
Hi EOC,
I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.
I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.
Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.
As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?
Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.
Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)
However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.
Of listening to the people and the GST hike
Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, Young PAP vice-chairperson (Women's Wing) on "Countdown to the 2% GST hike, Ministerial and Civil Service Pay Increments".
I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.
------------
Hi EOC,
I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.
I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.
Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.
As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?
Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.
Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)
However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.
I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.
------------
Hi EOC,
I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.
I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.
Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.
As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?
Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.
Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)
However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Rethinking Social Welfare in Singapore
Yesterday night I attended the NUSPA talk on the abovementioned topic, where the guest speakers included Mr. Teo Ser Luck (Parl. Sec., MCYS), Mr. Gerard Ee (former NCSS president and NKF chairman) and Assoc. Prof. Ngiam (Head of Social Work Dept, NUS). Overall, I felt that the session was an interesting one with many views bandied about, and there were some passionate voices amongst the audience and probably more who did not get heard.
--------------
Salient points of speeches raised by the guest speakers (not in their exact words): -
1. Mr. Teo
- Policymaking involves about reaching out to the masses [...] and managing public expectations.
- Education will be afforded to all Singaporeans because it is a leveller, health and housing are also basic needs which Singaporeans will not be denied of.
- $1.5 billion has been spent on healthcare subsidies last year.
- Welfare funded by taxes. Social security is a trade-off against economic competitiveness. Singapore needs to stay competitive because it cannot afford to be an insular economy.
- Scandic countries who traditionally offer comprehensive social welfare is now trying to revamp their social security systems. Social welfare -> high taxes. If companies choose to relocate to avoid the higher taxes, then unemployment is raised and more people will have to survive on social welfare. A vicious cycle is formed.
- Singapore has family-centric housing policies (e.g. children getting one-off subsidies on flats if they choose to stay near their parents).
- Social assistance: should look at family's ability to help first.
2. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam
- Before 50s: "Gotong royong", informal social networks to look out for each other, traditional philanthropy
- 60s: Basic social services - education, health and housing (these 3 form the bedrock of our society)
- 70s/80s: RCs to help with each estate's problems, FSCs to help families.
- 90s: "many helping hands" approach, CDCs set up.
-2000s: Workfare, Social Security bonuses (so-called 1st world intervention -> first signs of moving towards higher level of social security). This period heralds a change in government thinking about direct cash handouts to the people.
- Government's official stance is the individual is responsible for him/herself.
- Welfare mix/pluralism: (self, family, community, state)
- VWOS incur complex governance and professionalism issues (whether to use a light touch or regulatory approaches). Ultimately the management boards should be responsible for the organizations.
- Reliance on government surpluses not guaranteed, esp. during bad times.
3. Mr Ee
- Value systems have changed. Community spirit was strong in the 60s, but eroded by globalization effects. Society leans more towards individualism now.
- Many VWOs, schemes in place, but people not aware of them.
- Schemes need to be followed up with good implementation. Need more volunteers.
- Need people on the ground to look out for others.
----------------
I think that the speakers were able to give an alternative ring to things which I was unable to see. Previously I thought why more welfare shouldn't be given to the poor in Singapore as we always see elderly people picking up cardboard boxes and cans in the rubbish bins. Now I am beginning to understand that it is not so much a question of more welfare but rather how to go about finding these people, and whether these people will actually want help.
I agree with Mr Ee that we as individuals should try to help people around us, instead of asking the government to help (a more inefficient process). But the quantum of the social assistance that the government is offering now might seem a little on the low side, given the $290 a month cash handout is hardly enough to tide anybody over one month, if you count transport, food, rent and other miscellaneous stuff. But, as Mr. Teo pointed out, any amount given out is an arbitrary figure and it is hard to come up with one that can suit everyone (chew on that). I believe that a flexible scheme would be more appropriate, so that admin officers can have more room to manoeuvre based on the circumstances of the person(s) involved.
It is indeed tempting to ask for ever-increasing social security, but we must also bear in mind the cost of doing so. Proper cost-benefit analysis must be done to ensure that an optimum level will be reached. In the meanwhile, we can all sacrifice that $2 to help someone who we believe to need it more than us. I will certainly be opening my eyes more widely now to spot these people. I hope you guys will too!
--------------
Salient points of speeches raised by the guest speakers (not in their exact words): -
1. Mr. Teo
- Policymaking involves about reaching out to the masses [...] and managing public expectations.
- Education will be afforded to all Singaporeans because it is a leveller, health and housing are also basic needs which Singaporeans will not be denied of.
- $1.5 billion has been spent on healthcare subsidies last year.
- Welfare funded by taxes. Social security is a trade-off against economic competitiveness. Singapore needs to stay competitive because it cannot afford to be an insular economy.
- Scandic countries who traditionally offer comprehensive social welfare is now trying to revamp their social security systems. Social welfare -> high taxes. If companies choose to relocate to avoid the higher taxes, then unemployment is raised and more people will have to survive on social welfare. A vicious cycle is formed.
- Singapore has family-centric housing policies (e.g. children getting one-off subsidies on flats if they choose to stay near their parents).
- Social assistance: should look at family's ability to help first.
2. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam
- Before 50s: "Gotong royong", informal social networks to look out for each other, traditional philanthropy
- 60s: Basic social services - education, health and housing (these 3 form the bedrock of our society)
- 70s/80s: RCs to help with each estate's problems, FSCs to help families.
- 90s: "many helping hands" approach, CDCs set up.
-2000s: Workfare, Social Security bonuses (so-called 1st world intervention -> first signs of moving towards higher level of social security). This period heralds a change in government thinking about direct cash handouts to the people.
- Government's official stance is the individual is responsible for him/herself.
- Welfare mix/pluralism: (self, family, community, state)
- VWOS incur complex governance and professionalism issues (whether to use a light touch or regulatory approaches). Ultimately the management boards should be responsible for the organizations.
- Reliance on government surpluses not guaranteed, esp. during bad times.
3. Mr Ee
- Value systems have changed. Community spirit was strong in the 60s, but eroded by globalization effects. Society leans more towards individualism now.
- Many VWOs, schemes in place, but people not aware of them.
- Schemes need to be followed up with good implementation. Need more volunteers.
- Need people on the ground to look out for others.
----------------
I think that the speakers were able to give an alternative ring to things which I was unable to see. Previously I thought why more welfare shouldn't be given to the poor in Singapore as we always see elderly people picking up cardboard boxes and cans in the rubbish bins. Now I am beginning to understand that it is not so much a question of more welfare but rather how to go about finding these people, and whether these people will actually want help.
I agree with Mr Ee that we as individuals should try to help people around us, instead of asking the government to help (a more inefficient process). But the quantum of the social assistance that the government is offering now might seem a little on the low side, given the $290 a month cash handout is hardly enough to tide anybody over one month, if you count transport, food, rent and other miscellaneous stuff. But, as Mr. Teo pointed out, any amount given out is an arbitrary figure and it is hard to come up with one that can suit everyone (chew on that). I believe that a flexible scheme would be more appropriate, so that admin officers can have more room to manoeuvre based on the circumstances of the person(s) involved.
It is indeed tempting to ask for ever-increasing social security, but we must also bear in mind the cost of doing so. Proper cost-benefit analysis must be done to ensure that an optimum level will be reached. In the meanwhile, we can all sacrifice that $2 to help someone who we believe to need it more than us. I will certainly be opening my eyes more widely now to spot these people. I hope you guys will too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)