I like to chronicle the list of pressing issues and frustrations that Singaporean are facing today which I will elaborate in future blogs. By coming up with a list, it help me to stay focused and not stray away unnecessary into random ranting.
1) mass immigration influx particularly over the last 5 years
2) high housing cost
3) rising inflation
4) income disparity gap
5) loss of national identity & cohesion
6) low fertility rate
7) excessive ministerial and senior civil service compensation
8) healthcare cost
9) bloated SAF
10) lack of representation in Parliament for close to 40% of the population
11) overloaded public infrastructure eg transport
12) tranparency of government reserves and investment (Temasek, GIC..)
13) GLCs
14) lack of enterpreneurship
15) lack of clarity of purpose and mission with organizations like NTUC, PA
16) casino impact
17) ministerial accountability eg Floods, Mas Selemat
18) excessive GST & related taxes
19) education system issues
20) lack of support for retirees & sick
21) energy issues & hydrocarbon footprint
22) CPF
23) low productivity & economic competitiveness
23) weakening of social contract between the PAP dominated government and the people
Wow, I am surprised that when I sit down and list them, it is such a long list. Within each item, there could be a number of related issues too. To think that we have a parliament where the majority of the MPs are always singing praises of the government. Among the list, I think item (6) will most likely ruin Singapore as a nation in the long term.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Monday 21 March 2011
Some Observations about PAP candidates
From recent observations from the media, PAP aspiring new candidates can broadly be categorised to come from the following segments of the population:-
1) Civil Service/SAF
2) NTUC
3) Banker
4) Lawyers
5) Doctors
I would like to make a few comments on the composition of such a makeup
1) Most of them do not have experience working for the private enterprises where more often than not, careers are not smooth sailing and subjected to the twist and turn of the market.
2) There are no enterpreneurs in the group as it is often the case. PAP seems to have difficulty engaging the most unorthodox and creative segment of the population
3) For most of them, their work exposure are mainly in Singapore so they are often lacking the ability to understand how things tick outside Singapore
4) For some of them, it could even be suspected that they are joining the PAP to enhance their careers.
5) Most important of all, the selection fall way short of representing the entire populace
By throwing up this sort of people after the supposedly intricate and meticulous selection process, I think the PAP is not regenerating itself with the vigour and passion that is required if it is to lead Singapore forward onto more uncertain terrain.
On the contrary, the opposition has in this coming election been able to come up with some passionate and inspiring people who have chosen to tread the less down-trodden path.
Unlike the past, the opposition has close up the gaps and in some ways outshone the PAP in terms of the potential candidates that they throw up for GE2011.
1) Civil Service/SAF
2) NTUC
3) Banker
4) Lawyers
5) Doctors
I would like to make a few comments on the composition of such a makeup
1) Most of them do not have experience working for the private enterprises where more often than not, careers are not smooth sailing and subjected to the twist and turn of the market.
2) There are no enterpreneurs in the group as it is often the case. PAP seems to have difficulty engaging the most unorthodox and creative segment of the population
3) For most of them, their work exposure are mainly in Singapore so they are often lacking the ability to understand how things tick outside Singapore
4) For some of them, it could even be suspected that they are joining the PAP to enhance their careers.
5) Most important of all, the selection fall way short of representing the entire populace
By throwing up this sort of people after the supposedly intricate and meticulous selection process, I think the PAP is not regenerating itself with the vigour and passion that is required if it is to lead Singapore forward onto more uncertain terrain.
On the contrary, the opposition has in this coming election been able to come up with some passionate and inspiring people who have chosen to tread the less down-trodden path.
Unlike the past, the opposition has close up the gaps and in some ways outshone the PAP in terms of the potential candidates that they throw up for GE2011.
Thursday 17 March 2011
The Japanese Tragedy
The people in Japan are still reeling in the aftermath of the most devastating earthquake, tsunami and the ongoing risk of nuclear contamination emitting from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plants ever to have rocked Japanese history.A substantially large area of north-eastern Japan has been laid to waste within a few split seconds at the hand of mother nature.
I share my sympathy to all the people who are affected in one way or another by this most tragic catastrophe especially to those helpless victims who have perished during the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. I silently pray for those who are rendered homeless that they may be able to find the strength to recover and go back to their normal lives in the shortest time possible.
Above all, I am impressed with the way how the Japanese people bravely and stoicly took this montrous calamity in its stride. There are no riots, no looting and no mass hysteria. There is a strong. sense of "shared" responsibility amongst the Japanese in face of adversity.I doubt there is another populace on this planet that is able to react more courageously. I salute the selfless personnel braving the risk of excessive radiation exposure to relentlessly fight to cool down the nuclear fuels located in the damaged plants. These are huge risks that the fronline staff willingly undertook to try to save their compatriots and homeland from further radiation fallout at their own personal costs. What they are taking are existential risks and they know it. It may be possible that some of these valiant men may have to suffer from the side effects of excessive radiation exposure that may cost them their lives later on if we can relate to the experience of the Chernobyl meltdown
I also contemplate that if a disaster will to happen in Singapore, will our citizenry be able to react in a commendable manner? I have my serious doubts. In most likelihood, the nation will collapse with the rich, foreign workers and the new citizens probably being the first to pack their bags and go. There will be mass looting, I would conjecture given the lack of a group identity and sense of "shared" purpose that we are all Singaporeans with a common future and deep affection for this tiny red dot. I doubt we will be able to find the same number of selfless men in our SAF and SCDF who will be able to cast aside the risk to their personnel lives in a brave effort to save their fellow countrymen and their country from further destruction.
If I have to make such a reflection twenty years ago with a much younger and less prosperous Singapore, I would probably be less pesssimistic on our collective social cohesion and ability to stand together in face of severe hardships. Such it the resultant outcome of close to two decades of relentless insistence that you need to pay top dollars to those holding ministerial portfolio, to those in the SAF, to those in civil service, to those in PAP-related grassroot organization and to those in GLCs. The concept of service and sacrifice have been chipped away sliently and obscure in the process. The huge influx of immigrants over the last 5 years have diluted our national cohesiveness and our ability to care for each other just because we are all Singaporeans. Like it or not, there is a price to have to pay for the so called "progress".
I share my sympathy to all the people who are affected in one way or another by this most tragic catastrophe especially to those helpless victims who have perished during the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. I silently pray for those who are rendered homeless that they may be able to find the strength to recover and go back to their normal lives in the shortest time possible.
Above all, I am impressed with the way how the Japanese people bravely and stoicly took this montrous calamity in its stride. There are no riots, no looting and no mass hysteria. There is a strong. sense of "shared" responsibility amongst the Japanese in face of adversity.I doubt there is another populace on this planet that is able to react more courageously. I salute the selfless personnel braving the risk of excessive radiation exposure to relentlessly fight to cool down the nuclear fuels located in the damaged plants. These are huge risks that the fronline staff willingly undertook to try to save their compatriots and homeland from further radiation fallout at their own personal costs. What they are taking are existential risks and they know it. It may be possible that some of these valiant men may have to suffer from the side effects of excessive radiation exposure that may cost them their lives later on if we can relate to the experience of the Chernobyl meltdown
I also contemplate that if a disaster will to happen in Singapore, will our citizenry be able to react in a commendable manner? I have my serious doubts. In most likelihood, the nation will collapse with the rich, foreign workers and the new citizens probably being the first to pack their bags and go. There will be mass looting, I would conjecture given the lack of a group identity and sense of "shared" purpose that we are all Singaporeans with a common future and deep affection for this tiny red dot. I doubt we will be able to find the same number of selfless men in our SAF and SCDF who will be able to cast aside the risk to their personnel lives in a brave effort to save their fellow countrymen and their country from further destruction.
If I have to make such a reflection twenty years ago with a much younger and less prosperous Singapore, I would probably be less pesssimistic on our collective social cohesion and ability to stand together in face of severe hardships. Such it the resultant outcome of close to two decades of relentless insistence that you need to pay top dollars to those holding ministerial portfolio, to those in the SAF, to those in civil service, to those in PAP-related grassroot organization and to those in GLCs. The concept of service and sacrifice have been chipped away sliently and obscure in the process. The huge influx of immigrants over the last 5 years have diluted our national cohesiveness and our ability to care for each other just because we are all Singaporeans. Like it or not, there is a price to have to pay for the so called "progress".
Tuesday 15 March 2011
Singapore Fertility Rate
The hot issue of Singapore's declining total fertility rate was a key focus at this year's National Youth Forum, where Mr Goh was a guest-of-honour. Mr Goh said: "Those who can't afford to have children never had problems over affordability. They just have more children. And those who can afford, in fact, do not have more than one or two or so. So there's that contradiction over there, which suggests that having children in fact is a rather complex issue."
I think Mr Goh still does not get it. The reason I would be inclined to think so is that Mr Goh has been having a rather secure and smooth sailing career for too long. Likewise over the years, he has been working with or surrounded himself with people from the civil service or SAF where their jobs are too relatively secure and stable.
If you are in the private sector, you would have realised very quickly albeit depending on which line you are in that your job is always on the line. You could be fire any day due to reasons that are totally out of your control. In most cases, it has neither to do with ability or attitude. When whole industry collapses, there is really no place where you can hide. There is also a high rate where skills and experience are made redundant with the increasing pace of change in technology and emerging industries. In short, careers in private sector can be very disruptive.
Thus, I would surmise that one of the main reason singaporeans are not willing to have kids or more kids is not really an attitudinal issue. The more important factors are the uncertainty and the constant need for new adaption that come as part and parcel of private sector jobs. You could be drawing $15K per month and be the top performer this year but you know jolly well that you could be fire the very next day for whatever reasons. Finding similar jobs get increasing difficult as one get older and almost impossible once you hit 45. Young people starting out at 25 could not envision where they can be 10 years down the road, let alone 20.
Given such backdrop, why do people want to have kids as it going to be at least a 20+ years commitment?
If you look at the birth rate during the Asian Financial Crisis, it dropped. Why, becuase people became uncertain about the future so they postpone having a child. The dot-com crisis hit only smaller segment of the population so the effect may not be so accentuated. The SARS crisis is too short. Our TFR hit record low in 2010 recently, guess what? The 2008/2009 Financial Crisis!!!Remember, there is a delay effect of about 10 months.
I have this conjecture that married people in the civil service (including teaching) and SAF tends to have more kids that those working in the private sectors, especially the highly volatile ones.
I think Mr Goh still does not get it. The reason I would be inclined to think so is that Mr Goh has been having a rather secure and smooth sailing career for too long. Likewise over the years, he has been working with or surrounded himself with people from the civil service or SAF where their jobs are too relatively secure and stable.
If you are in the private sector, you would have realised very quickly albeit depending on which line you are in that your job is always on the line. You could be fire any day due to reasons that are totally out of your control. In most cases, it has neither to do with ability or attitude. When whole industry collapses, there is really no place where you can hide. There is also a high rate where skills and experience are made redundant with the increasing pace of change in technology and emerging industries. In short, careers in private sector can be very disruptive.
Thus, I would surmise that one of the main reason singaporeans are not willing to have kids or more kids is not really an attitudinal issue. The more important factors are the uncertainty and the constant need for new adaption that come as part and parcel of private sector jobs. You could be drawing $15K per month and be the top performer this year but you know jolly well that you could be fire the very next day for whatever reasons. Finding similar jobs get increasing difficult as one get older and almost impossible once you hit 45. Young people starting out at 25 could not envision where they can be 10 years down the road, let alone 20.
Given such backdrop, why do people want to have kids as it going to be at least a 20+ years commitment?
If you look at the birth rate during the Asian Financial Crisis, it dropped. Why, becuase people became uncertain about the future so they postpone having a child. The dot-com crisis hit only smaller segment of the population so the effect may not be so accentuated. The SARS crisis is too short. Our TFR hit record low in 2010 recently, guess what? The 2008/2009 Financial Crisis!!!Remember, there is a delay effect of about 10 months.
I have this conjecture that married people in the civil service (including teaching) and SAF tends to have more kids that those working in the private sectors, especially the highly volatile ones.
Saturday 12 March 2011
Mr Goh Chok Tong and his Sendo Earthquake comment
Below is Mr Goh Chok Tong comment on the recent monster earthquake and subsequent tsunami crashing into the shores of north-eastern Japan.
“How many of you followed the latest tragic events in Japan with the tsunami…and then put into context our floods in Singapore against that kind of disaster. I am not saying we shouldn’t do anything about the flood. But the amount of noise you made with just sporadic flood compared to the Japanese. I saw them on TV. Very stoic looking. You don’t see them crying. This has happened, just get on, that’s the kind of spirit you want to have and you call it nation building.”
While Mr Goh correct to point out that this is a very tragic event that happened in Japan and should all pray and hope that the victims can recover and Japan as nation will overcome this tragedy in time to come. However, I cannot agree that he compare an earthquake of such magnitude (measuring about 8.9 on the Richter scale and rank the 4th largest recorded earthquake of all times) which is the result of an act of God or an uncontrollable natural disaster (whichever way you may be inclined to think) with floods which engulf our major residential an commercial prime district which are more likely due to human incompetence in drainage planning and execution. The very different in the nature of the two events will warrant very different reactions from the populace. While one cannot rant and pinpoint blame against an event of the nature like the Sendo earthquake but the blame for the floods that submerge part of Orchard and Bukit Timah district lie squarely on the shoulder on Dr Yaacob Ibrahim and his ministry for environment and to a certain extent on the incumbent government.
The fact that Mr Goh did not suggest that we do not do anything about the floods is telling because it does implies that there are pre-emptive actions that we can do to prevent the floods but we did not do. Against an event of the scale of the Sendo earthquake and subsequently triggered tsunami, there is actually nothing wthin the means of mankind to prevent it from happening.
“How many of you followed the latest tragic events in Japan with the tsunami…and then put into context our floods in Singapore against that kind of disaster. I am not saying we shouldn’t do anything about the flood. But the amount of noise you made with just sporadic flood compared to the Japanese. I saw them on TV. Very stoic looking. You don’t see them crying. This has happened, just get on, that’s the kind of spirit you want to have and you call it nation building.”
While Mr Goh correct to point out that this is a very tragic event that happened in Japan and should all pray and hope that the victims can recover and Japan as nation will overcome this tragedy in time to come. However, I cannot agree that he compare an earthquake of such magnitude (measuring about 8.9 on the Richter scale and rank the 4th largest recorded earthquake of all times) which is the result of an act of God or an uncontrollable natural disaster (whichever way you may be inclined to think) with floods which engulf our major residential an commercial prime district which are more likely due to human incompetence in drainage planning and execution. The very different in the nature of the two events will warrant very different reactions from the populace. While one cannot rant and pinpoint blame against an event of the nature like the Sendo earthquake but the blame for the floods that submerge part of Orchard and Bukit Timah district lie squarely on the shoulder on Dr Yaacob Ibrahim and his ministry for environment and to a certain extent on the incumbent government.
The fact that Mr Goh did not suggest that we do not do anything about the floods is telling because it does implies that there are pre-emptive actions that we can do to prevent the floods but we did not do. Against an event of the scale of the Sendo earthquake and subsequently triggered tsunami, there is actually nothing wthin the means of mankind to prevent it from happening.
Friday 11 March 2011
Singapore President's Salary
I note that Parliament on Thursday approved the allocation of an additional $1.25 million to the Civil List, which specifies the salaries of the President, his personal staff, and expenditure.
The amount set aside for the President's salary is $4,267,500, up from $3,376,800. The entertainment allowance remains unchanged at $73,000. The amount for staff salaries increases by $471,600 to $4,532,400.
Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said these increases were to cater for an additional staff officer to support the work of the Council of Presidential Advisers, a Butler Manager to meet the increased demand for butler services at the Istana, and to meet higher variable payments on account of strong economic growth.
My Comment: Is there really a need to pay such a high salary plus a team of entourage to a President whose role is largely ceremonial. Come on, Singapore is a small country, this is utter extravagance! Barrak Obama, the executive President of the United States, a person of immense talent and gift for oration is paid probably in the range of 1/10 of our President.
The amount set aside for the President's salary is $4,267,500, up from $3,376,800. The entertainment allowance remains unchanged at $73,000. The amount for staff salaries increases by $471,600 to $4,532,400.
Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said these increases were to cater for an additional staff officer to support the work of the Council of Presidential Advisers, a Butler Manager to meet the increased demand for butler services at the Istana, and to meet higher variable payments on account of strong economic growth.
My Comment: Is there really a need to pay such a high salary plus a team of entourage to a President whose role is largely ceremonial. Come on, Singapore is a small country, this is utter extravagance! Barrak Obama, the executive President of the United States, a person of immense talent and gift for oration is paid probably in the range of 1/10 of our President.
Thursday 10 March 2011
High Housing Price - Does it hurt the PAP Government?
The answer to the question in the title seems pretty obvious, doesn't it.
Well, I would like to argument that the sum tangible outcome of the public sentiments towards high housing price may not hurt the PAP government as much as what many would like to think. Why is this so?
Firstly, there is this thing called entrenched interest. And there is this other thing called self-interest. There are a substantial portion of citizens out there who are living in landed properties,private apartments and high-end HDB flats who have cleared or almost cleared their outstanding mortgages. For most mortals, they will invariably experience a saccharine feeling when they get hit by the daily bombardment of advertisements in the paper or otherwise telling them that their properties are now worth much more than the original purchase value. Most will even secretly hope it will go higher as then they will feel even richer, though much of that is not realisable unless the property is sold. Remember, these people do not have a mortgage or very little mortgage left to service. It is like buying at stock and seeing its price shooting into the atmospheric region over a matter of a few years or months.
High property prices hit hardest on those salaried workers who are about to settle down in their lives and are thinking about how to purchase their first property.
To sum up, high property prices, in itself will not cause the PAP government to lose an election and I believe the incumbent goverment knows that pretty well. Through the concept of home ownership and rising property prices, the government has actually built safety "ballasts" into our election system to determine an outcome favourable to the incumbent. So, it is of paramount importance that the opposition cannot be seen in the eyes of the public as trouble-makers bent on overturning the system, advertently or not.
Well, I would like to argument that the sum tangible outcome of the public sentiments towards high housing price may not hurt the PAP government as much as what many would like to think. Why is this so?
Firstly, there is this thing called entrenched interest. And there is this other thing called self-interest. There are a substantial portion of citizens out there who are living in landed properties,private apartments and high-end HDB flats who have cleared or almost cleared their outstanding mortgages. For most mortals, they will invariably experience a saccharine feeling when they get hit by the daily bombardment of advertisements in the paper or otherwise telling them that their properties are now worth much more than the original purchase value. Most will even secretly hope it will go higher as then they will feel even richer, though much of that is not realisable unless the property is sold. Remember, these people do not have a mortgage or very little mortgage left to service. It is like buying at stock and seeing its price shooting into the atmospheric region over a matter of a few years or months.
High property prices hit hardest on those salaried workers who are about to settle down in their lives and are thinking about how to purchase their first property.
To sum up, high property prices, in itself will not cause the PAP government to lose an election and I believe the incumbent goverment knows that pretty well. Through the concept of home ownership and rising property prices, the government has actually built safety "ballasts" into our election system to determine an outcome favourable to the incumbent. So, it is of paramount importance that the opposition cannot be seen in the eyes of the public as trouble-makers bent on overturning the system, advertently or not.
Wednesday 9 March 2011
The more PAP promises - the more worried I am
You have hear all the sweet music whispering into your hears recently.
Raymond Lim promises better public transport - more bus and MRT capacity ....
MBT pledge to increase supply of flats more financial aid for lower income through SHG, AHG etc
Tharman says more help for the poor....
Even NTUC so nice say price of food frozen until June 2011.
LKY made rare admission of being "stand corrected" on his comment on Malay-Muslim integration
Frankly speaking, if a government sincerely felt that it has done all its utmost best for the electorate over the last five years, there is no need to sugar-coat all these near the incoming elections. It seems all a bit insincere.
Raymond Lim promises better public transport - more bus and MRT capacity ....
MBT pledge to increase supply of flats more financial aid for lower income through SHG, AHG etc
Tharman says more help for the poor....
Even NTUC so nice say price of food frozen until June 2011.
LKY made rare admission of being "stand corrected" on his comment on Malay-Muslim integration
Frankly speaking, if a government sincerely felt that it has done all its utmost best for the electorate over the last five years, there is no need to sugar-coat all these near the incoming elections. It seems all a bit insincere.
Ng Eng Hen - Master Of Confusion?
In the recent debate in Parliament, the education minister quoted a load of statistics to defend the notion that social mobility is still a very much central tenet in our meritocratic system. Here are some examples that he quoted to answer the question about how are the children in the bottom one-third of the socio-economic background faring:-
"One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE”
“One in six scores in the top one-third at PSLE”
"One in five scores in the top 30% at O and A levels… One in five goes to university and polys”
Is this kind of statistics convincing or confusing the issue? I would like to pose the following questions:-
1) Pls give statistics on the children coming from the top 10% of the socio-economic strata?
2) Pls give breakdown of statistics by timeframe as the socio-eonomic background has accentuated acutely over the last five years
3) Pls give the number of children coming from the bottom 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into RI, RGS, HCI, NYGS and ACS(I)
4) Pls give the number of children coming from the top 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into RI, RGS, HCI, NYGS and ACS(I)
5) Pls give the number of children coming from the bottom 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into medicine and law in NUS
6) Pls give the number of children coming from the top 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into medicine and law in NUS
My gut feeling tell me that you may be surprised and be less assuring if these figures are available to you.
"One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE”
“One in six scores in the top one-third at PSLE”
"One in five scores in the top 30% at O and A levels… One in five goes to university and polys”
Is this kind of statistics convincing or confusing the issue? I would like to pose the following questions:-
1) Pls give statistics on the children coming from the top 10% of the socio-economic strata?
2) Pls give breakdown of statistics by timeframe as the socio-eonomic background has accentuated acutely over the last five years
3) Pls give the number of children coming from the bottom 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into RI, RGS, HCI, NYGS and ACS(I)
4) Pls give the number of children coming from the top 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into RI, RGS, HCI, NYGS and ACS(I)
5) Pls give the number of children coming from the bottom 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into medicine and law in NUS
6) Pls give the number of children coming from the top 20% of the socio-economic strata getting into medicine and law in NUS
My gut feeling tell me that you may be surprised and be less assuring if these figures are available to you.
Education - the social leveller?
I read a few days ago in the StraitTimes on the somewhat emotional debate in Parliament regarding whether children coming from the less privilege segment of our population are given adequate opportunity to excel, hence subsequently improve upon their social-economic conditions.
It seems a universally acknowledged truth that education is the key to economic success. Everyone seems to know that the jobs of the future will require ever higher levels of skill.
This is really the case? I feel it may turn out to be wrong!
The Times published an article about the growing use of software to perform legal research. Computers, it turns out, can quickly analyze millions of documents, cheaply performing a task that used to require armies of lawyers and paralegals. In this case, then, technological progress is actually reducing the demand for highly educated workers. And legal research isn’t an isolated example. As the article points out, software has also been replacing engineers in such tasks as chip design. More broadly, the idea that modern technology eliminates only menial jobs, that well-educated workers are clear winners, may dominate popular discussion, but it’s actually be out of date.
Computers excel in performing cognitive or manual tasks that require explicit rules. Hence any jobs, including numerous white-collar jobs premised on the ability to operate those rules are at risk. On the contrary, any jobs that cannot be performed by explicit rules like prison guards will remain relevant in face of such technological advances.
The pertinent question is - are we pushing our children to active pursue a higher education that ultimately is no more than ticket to a job that does not exist anymore! Or what sort of skills should our childrens acquire to prevent from being replace by the androids of the future? I am curious nobody ask the question in Parliament to our honourable education minister.
It seems a universally acknowledged truth that education is the key to economic success. Everyone seems to know that the jobs of the future will require ever higher levels of skill.
This is really the case? I feel it may turn out to be wrong!
The Times published an article about the growing use of software to perform legal research. Computers, it turns out, can quickly analyze millions of documents, cheaply performing a task that used to require armies of lawyers and paralegals. In this case, then, technological progress is actually reducing the demand for highly educated workers. And legal research isn’t an isolated example. As the article points out, software has also been replacing engineers in such tasks as chip design. More broadly, the idea that modern technology eliminates only menial jobs, that well-educated workers are clear winners, may dominate popular discussion, but it’s actually be out of date.
Computers excel in performing cognitive or manual tasks that require explicit rules. Hence any jobs, including numerous white-collar jobs premised on the ability to operate those rules are at risk. On the contrary, any jobs that cannot be performed by explicit rules like prison guards will remain relevant in face of such technological advances.
The pertinent question is - are we pushing our children to active pursue a higher education that ultimately is no more than ticket to a job that does not exist anymore! Or what sort of skills should our childrens acquire to prevent from being replace by the androids of the future? I am curious nobody ask the question in Parliament to our honourable education minister.
Tuesday 8 March 2011
GE2011 - Leadership Renewal??
Is GE 2011 really about getting the right people to form the fourth generation leadership? Does it overrides all the other issues in consideration?
Here are the snippets:-
SM Goh was quite unequivocal about the matter. “We must produce Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister…” in the upcoming election.
Mr Teo Chee Hean said, when asked by reporters if PM Lee’s replacement is among the new batch of PAP candidates. “All we can do is to make sure that we have a system that continues to bring in good people,” he explains.
Singapore will be selecting its fourth generation leaders in the coming General Election, Channel Newsasia (CNA) reported Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan as having said. He added that “succession planning is one of the strategies of the ruling People’s Action Party.”
I am going to look into the crystal ball and try to do what is normally an impossible task to do - I will predict PAP main battle-cry in the coming 2011 Elections. It will in all probablity revolves around two key issues:-
First, the horrifying prospect of a "freak election" where PAP is not able to be returned to power since the majority of the seats thrown up for grabs will be contested this time. Will the people be willing to risk the stability of they and their family lives by tempting to vote for an opposition just to get some alternative voices in Parliament?
Secondly, it will be crucially important to vote in the new slate of candidates that the PAP has put up in this election as some of them will eventually have to form the nucleus of a fourth generation leadership. This is the only way to secure a strong future for the nation in these tumultuous and uncertain times
Is this really the case? If election is not about a report card of the performance of the incumbent over the last five years, then what are elections really for?
To rebut the first argument, if the PAP is really worried about the prospect of a "freak election", then it must also suggest that they too also realised that their performance over the last five years must have be disastrously bad so as to allow them to contemplate that such a massive shift in public sentiment might happen. You should know in statistical terms that such a Richter scale of the order of 9.0 shift do not happen overnight unless there are strong undercurrents of discontent that converge to form an explosive mix. If that is the case, do you still want to give them an endorsing mandate so that the current pathetic state of affairs continue?
To rebuke the second argument, it could almost be argued by the PAP is always stressing the importance that they are able to bring in good people in every election. In 2006, PM Lee said that he had a "a good team of men and women". Alas, after 5 years, how have they measure up? Let us take a look at the most promising ones - Adm (Ret) Lui Tuck Yew. Do you guys really think he is so good that he can be one of the indispensable persona to be in our core leadership team. What has he really done over the last five years? Is he replaceable? It is perhaps ironic that he turns out to man MICA when he went on record to comment that he do not look at porn. If he is truthful to his comment, I would conjecture he may not be the right man for MICA since there is a lot of porn on New Media and he has to know how to manage that. Another is Teo Ser Luck - his entire 5-year tenure is characterised by bidding and organising a YOG which incidentally turned out to be a major flop in term of generating the right publicity for th nation and massive budget overruns.
If you go by some linear extrapolation of logic, the current slate is unlikely to think and perform significantly different from the previous batch as they have been carefully selected using the same yardstick and by the very same set of assessors.
We are not going to have the papal system whereby we have to go through a meticulous and exhaustive search to find the anointed "one" to lead each political generation. The ultimate consequence of such a system will be in-breeding within the ruling elites. In such a system, Barrack Obama will never become the President of the United States.
Here are the snippets:-
SM Goh was quite unequivocal about the matter. “We must produce Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister…” in the upcoming election.
Mr Teo Chee Hean said, when asked by reporters if PM Lee’s replacement is among the new batch of PAP candidates. “All we can do is to make sure that we have a system that continues to bring in good people,” he explains.
Singapore will be selecting its fourth generation leaders in the coming General Election, Channel Newsasia (CNA) reported Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan as having said. He added that “succession planning is one of the strategies of the ruling People’s Action Party.”
I am going to look into the crystal ball and try to do what is normally an impossible task to do - I will predict PAP main battle-cry in the coming 2011 Elections. It will in all probablity revolves around two key issues:-
First, the horrifying prospect of a "freak election" where PAP is not able to be returned to power since the majority of the seats thrown up for grabs will be contested this time. Will the people be willing to risk the stability of they and their family lives by tempting to vote for an opposition just to get some alternative voices in Parliament?
Secondly, it will be crucially important to vote in the new slate of candidates that the PAP has put up in this election as some of them will eventually have to form the nucleus of a fourth generation leadership. This is the only way to secure a strong future for the nation in these tumultuous and uncertain times
Is this really the case? If election is not about a report card of the performance of the incumbent over the last five years, then what are elections really for?
To rebut the first argument, if the PAP is really worried about the prospect of a "freak election", then it must also suggest that they too also realised that their performance over the last five years must have be disastrously bad so as to allow them to contemplate that such a massive shift in public sentiment might happen. You should know in statistical terms that such a Richter scale of the order of 9.0 shift do not happen overnight unless there are strong undercurrents of discontent that converge to form an explosive mix. If that is the case, do you still want to give them an endorsing mandate so that the current pathetic state of affairs continue?
To rebuke the second argument, it could almost be argued by the PAP is always stressing the importance that they are able to bring in good people in every election. In 2006, PM Lee said that he had a "a good team of men and women". Alas, after 5 years, how have they measure up? Let us take a look at the most promising ones - Adm (Ret) Lui Tuck Yew. Do you guys really think he is so good that he can be one of the indispensable persona to be in our core leadership team. What has he really done over the last five years? Is he replaceable? It is perhaps ironic that he turns out to man MICA when he went on record to comment that he do not look at porn. If he is truthful to his comment, I would conjecture he may not be the right man for MICA since there is a lot of porn on New Media and he has to know how to manage that. Another is Teo Ser Luck - his entire 5-year tenure is characterised by bidding and organising a YOG which incidentally turned out to be a major flop in term of generating the right publicity for th nation and massive budget overruns.
If you go by some linear extrapolation of logic, the current slate is unlikely to think and perform significantly different from the previous batch as they have been carefully selected using the same yardstick and by the very same set of assessors.
We are not going to have the papal system whereby we have to go through a meticulous and exhaustive search to find the anointed "one" to lead each political generation. The ultimate consequence of such a system will be in-breeding within the ruling elites. In such a system, Barrack Obama will never become the President of the United States.
A Note on Tharman's Speech
I read the other day that our honourable finance minister highlighted in Parliament that in the overall, Singaporeans pay one of the lowest taxes in world, in fact about two-thirds of what a US citizen pay.
I did not do further research on this topic but such a remark strike me as instinctively incorrect. There are always two sides to the same coin. Typically, in countries that mandate that its citizens pay for higher taxes, the governments are also obliged under the law to provide a comprehensive social security net encompassing healthcare, unemployment and retirement pensions for the majority of its citizens. Hence,in the US, social security spending together with medicare and mediaid take up a substantial portion of the country budget spending.
On the contrary, the government over here does very little in the area of providing a social security net for its citizens as there is always this constant BIG fear that in doing so, even in a gesture move, will signal the road down a slipper path of no return.
Hence, if it will to be true that Singaporeans have to pay about two-thirds of the taxes compared to someone in US for a similar income level, then I would think our system of taxation has indeed gone awry.
I did not do further research on this topic but such a remark strike me as instinctively incorrect. There are always two sides to the same coin. Typically, in countries that mandate that its citizens pay for higher taxes, the governments are also obliged under the law to provide a comprehensive social security net encompassing healthcare, unemployment and retirement pensions for the majority of its citizens. Hence,in the US, social security spending together with medicare and mediaid take up a substantial portion of the country budget spending.
On the contrary, the government over here does very little in the area of providing a social security net for its citizens as there is always this constant BIG fear that in doing so, even in a gesture move, will signal the road down a slipper path of no return.
Hence, if it will to be true that Singaporeans have to pay about two-thirds of the taxes compared to someone in US for a similar income level, then I would think our system of taxation has indeed gone awry.
Sunday 6 March 2011
The Singapore' Dilemma
Singapore growth strategy till before the 1997 Asia Financial Crisis has been largely based on a export-led model powered by a wide collection of MNCs attracted to the favourable labour, taxation and intellectual property protection policies of the country. In some ways, this has largely been successful and lifted the GDP of the country to a level that is one of the highest in Asia.
Between 1997 till 2003, the country suffered from a series of external shocks eg Asian Financial Crisis, Dot-Com Bubble Burst, Sars. But what is more significant is the emergence of China during this period as the de-facto manufacturing base in the global supply chain. Most of the manufacturing industry that typically employed a large number of labour-intensive workers have started to relocate to the coastal areas of China seeking to lower their costs in production.The effect snowballed and a number the SME supplying to these MNC have also relocated in order to be closer to their customers. As the original model is based on MNC-led export growth, core R&D and manufacturing know-how is tightly controlled by these companies and not transferred down to the locals. During the boom days, MNCs provided good jobs at senior level that often provided good salary and perks, thus disincentivised risk-taking amongst locals to strike out on their own. The civil service is no help either as salaries are kept attractive relative to private sector to retain people. The GLCs as a whole are given the backing by the government to dominate the small local base but are clueless once outside the small island.
All good things come to an end. As MNCs packed their bags and left for cheaper locations, thousands of workers in the manufacturing industry are thrown out from their work. Quite a few of them have to be "retrained" to take up lower-paying service-related jobs. GLC like Chartered Semicon lost out in the fiercely competitive foundry business to their Taiwanese counterparts TSMC and UMC and was finally absorbed by IBM. This is despite the billions that were invested in Chartered by Temasek. ST Eng remained very much an organization reliant on contracts from the SAF to keep going. SCS has completely disappeared despite having a headstart over Infosys and the likes in the early eighties. Remember NatSteel used to have a OEM company called NatSteel Electronics that as sold to Solectron whilst Foxconn in Taiwan grew from a one-man shop to a fortune 500 company. The landscape of the tech-industry in Singappore is bleak and get only bleaker with each passing day.
Whereas if you look at the other two asia tigers Taiwan and Korea where they chose to be less reliant on MNCs led growth but instead help local local enterprises to developed core competencies while collaborating and at times competing with these MNCs. With these key competencies, they building fledging companies that blossom into fortune 500 companies. With years of accumulated experience in growing and competing in cut-throat industry, they are starting to turned to clean energy and biochem product development and manufacturing. I once talked to a Taiwanese businessman. I asked "The IT industry is getting commoditized. What is Taiwan going to do?". His reply as casual but comforting, "Taiwanese businessman are very sharp. As long as the government do not interfere, they will find their way out". Looking at the industry landscape now, I must say what he said is true. You will find Taiwanese less reliant on provided add-on components based on third-party technology but by providing more of the core technology previously provided by western MNCs. As an example, Mediatek has become one of the largest provider of mobile chip technology in the world. I bet they may have overtaken TI in this space and are second to Qualcomm. Not bad for a company that started out by providing a platform to built "black-market" phones in China!
Hence, there was the decision in 2004 to push ahead to built the two IRs to create more buzz to the local industry. No doubt their are benefits to what the IRs can bring, but what is created are low-wage paying service jobs. We do not yet know what the pernicious effects of having easily accessible casinos will have on our social fabic and work ethics, but IRs do not really provide us with a competitive edge in the sense that they can be easily replicated elsewhere. Imagine Korea has nurture a Samung and you try to replicate Samsung? Taiwan has nurture a TSMC and you try to replicate TSMC? You get the idea.
We have imported thousands of foreign workers in the last five years, not to help us to built world-class companies but more to provide cheap labour to our service industry. In general, wages for the bottom half of the population have stagnated over the last five years and jobs get more competitive with foreign workers vying for a piece of the cake.
If you look carefully as to what has happen after 1997, Singapore do not really have a growth path moving forward. The expansion of the economy through the creation of low-end service jobs powered by foreign workers cannot continue forever. What can we do next?
Afte spending billions of dollars to promote biotech and through organization like A-Star where scholarships up to PhD level are granted by the hundreds or even thousands, there is a lot of doubt that these will bear good fruits. In the most extreme case, these will turn out to be hugely costly experiment for the nation.
As such even with the coming elections, the PAP government have yet to be able to formulate a vision for Singapore for the next ten years. Perhaps, from the current lineup of their candidates, it may help to suggest that they too are running out of ideas.
Between 1997 till 2003, the country suffered from a series of external shocks eg Asian Financial Crisis, Dot-Com Bubble Burst, Sars. But what is more significant is the emergence of China during this period as the de-facto manufacturing base in the global supply chain. Most of the manufacturing industry that typically employed a large number of labour-intensive workers have started to relocate to the coastal areas of China seeking to lower their costs in production.The effect snowballed and a number the SME supplying to these MNC have also relocated in order to be closer to their customers. As the original model is based on MNC-led export growth, core R&D and manufacturing know-how is tightly controlled by these companies and not transferred down to the locals. During the boom days, MNCs provided good jobs at senior level that often provided good salary and perks, thus disincentivised risk-taking amongst locals to strike out on their own. The civil service is no help either as salaries are kept attractive relative to private sector to retain people. The GLCs as a whole are given the backing by the government to dominate the small local base but are clueless once outside the small island.
All good things come to an end. As MNCs packed their bags and left for cheaper locations, thousands of workers in the manufacturing industry are thrown out from their work. Quite a few of them have to be "retrained" to take up lower-paying service-related jobs. GLC like Chartered Semicon lost out in the fiercely competitive foundry business to their Taiwanese counterparts TSMC and UMC and was finally absorbed by IBM. This is despite the billions that were invested in Chartered by Temasek. ST Eng remained very much an organization reliant on contracts from the SAF to keep going. SCS has completely disappeared despite having a headstart over Infosys and the likes in the early eighties. Remember NatSteel used to have a OEM company called NatSteel Electronics that as sold to Solectron whilst Foxconn in Taiwan grew from a one-man shop to a fortune 500 company. The landscape of the tech-industry in Singappore is bleak and get only bleaker with each passing day.
Whereas if you look at the other two asia tigers Taiwan and Korea where they chose to be less reliant on MNCs led growth but instead help local local enterprises to developed core competencies while collaborating and at times competing with these MNCs. With these key competencies, they building fledging companies that blossom into fortune 500 companies. With years of accumulated experience in growing and competing in cut-throat industry, they are starting to turned to clean energy and biochem product development and manufacturing. I once talked to a Taiwanese businessman. I asked "The IT industry is getting commoditized. What is Taiwan going to do?". His reply as casual but comforting, "Taiwanese businessman are very sharp. As long as the government do not interfere, they will find their way out". Looking at the industry landscape now, I must say what he said is true. You will find Taiwanese less reliant on provided add-on components based on third-party technology but by providing more of the core technology previously provided by western MNCs. As an example, Mediatek has become one of the largest provider of mobile chip technology in the world. I bet they may have overtaken TI in this space and are second to Qualcomm. Not bad for a company that started out by providing a platform to built "black-market" phones in China!
Hence, there was the decision in 2004 to push ahead to built the two IRs to create more buzz to the local industry. No doubt their are benefits to what the IRs can bring, but what is created are low-wage paying service jobs. We do not yet know what the pernicious effects of having easily accessible casinos will have on our social fabic and work ethics, but IRs do not really provide us with a competitive edge in the sense that they can be easily replicated elsewhere. Imagine Korea has nurture a Samung and you try to replicate Samsung? Taiwan has nurture a TSMC and you try to replicate TSMC? You get the idea.
We have imported thousands of foreign workers in the last five years, not to help us to built world-class companies but more to provide cheap labour to our service industry. In general, wages for the bottom half of the population have stagnated over the last five years and jobs get more competitive with foreign workers vying for a piece of the cake.
If you look carefully as to what has happen after 1997, Singapore do not really have a growth path moving forward. The expansion of the economy through the creation of low-end service jobs powered by foreign workers cannot continue forever. What can we do next?
Afte spending billions of dollars to promote biotech and through organization like A-Star where scholarships up to PhD level are granted by the hundreds or even thousands, there is a lot of doubt that these will bear good fruits. In the most extreme case, these will turn out to be hugely costly experiment for the nation.
As such even with the coming elections, the PAP government have yet to be able to formulate a vision for Singapore for the next ten years. Perhaps, from the current lineup of their candidates, it may help to suggest that they too are running out of ideas.
Reining in the "Tuition" Tiger
During the schooldays in the seventies, one almost could not come across anyone having tuition for his subjects. At the very most, some of the more privileged students could be learning piano, that is about all as privileged as you can get. If you are in the elite schools eg NJC, RI or ACS at that time, to let others know that you are having tuition would tantamount to admitting intellectual inferiority or inability to cope.
Alas, how times have changed. The tuition industry has blossomed into a almost $1billion dollars industry locally catering for students ranging from the nursery to Pre-University. I am even beginning to hear of some University students asking for extra help!!!
I think we are caught in a ridiculous predicament where every well-intentioned parents will insist on providing the extra impetus so that their child can gain the extra mileage in the academic rat-race. This means often stretching at times some parents' financial limits. The schools are no helping either by insisting that students should be actively involved in a wide range of CCAs so that they can develop into well-rounded individuals. In taxing the students extraneously, they have abdicated the role of producing excellent academic results to the tuition industry. In any case, you cannot really know how much the excellent results from the students in RI or HCI are boosted with the help of having extra the tuition .
While we do not deny that there are positive aspects as to what the tuition industry can provide, one unintended negative social outcome would be that the students from less privileged background would lose out in the competitive rat-race even if all other things remain equal. Another could be the expensive cost of tuition would also be an inhibiting factor pushing down our fertility rate as would-be parents would be fearful of the overall cost of bringing up an extra child with the added tuition cost which can be substantial. As the thinking goes, " If you can't be sure you can provide, it may be better not to have".
If think it is opportune at this point that some thoughts to be put in to rein in this tiger. I am not suggesting that we ban the tuition industry altogether. One possible approach is to apply some pressure points on the schools especially the elite schools where typically parents will have more resources to put their kids to tuition whether they need it or not.
There should be some performance metric for schools to measure the amount of tuition hours and dollars consume on a per student ratio. Schools that are able to bring down these metric should be rewarded and recognised more compare to schools that didn't. Doing so may possibly help the cost of tuition to come down.
I may be accused of proposing a levelling-down approach but if you think critically about it, this is not the case. When something has built into a big bubble, it may be time to stick a needle to slowly let out some air.
Let us be delighted to hear some hissing air out from tuition bubble as I believe we will reap the social benefits that will come along with it.
Alas, how times have changed. The tuition industry has blossomed into a almost $1billion dollars industry locally catering for students ranging from the nursery to Pre-University. I am even beginning to hear of some University students asking for extra help!!!
I think we are caught in a ridiculous predicament where every well-intentioned parents will insist on providing the extra impetus so that their child can gain the extra mileage in the academic rat-race. This means often stretching at times some parents' financial limits. The schools are no helping either by insisting that students should be actively involved in a wide range of CCAs so that they can develop into well-rounded individuals. In taxing the students extraneously, they have abdicated the role of producing excellent academic results to the tuition industry. In any case, you cannot really know how much the excellent results from the students in RI or HCI are boosted with the help of having extra the tuition .
While we do not deny that there are positive aspects as to what the tuition industry can provide, one unintended negative social outcome would be that the students from less privileged background would lose out in the competitive rat-race even if all other things remain equal. Another could be the expensive cost of tuition would also be an inhibiting factor pushing down our fertility rate as would-be parents would be fearful of the overall cost of bringing up an extra child with the added tuition cost which can be substantial. As the thinking goes, " If you can't be sure you can provide, it may be better not to have".
If think it is opportune at this point that some thoughts to be put in to rein in this tiger. I am not suggesting that we ban the tuition industry altogether. One possible approach is to apply some pressure points on the schools especially the elite schools where typically parents will have more resources to put their kids to tuition whether they need it or not.
There should be some performance metric for schools to measure the amount of tuition hours and dollars consume on a per student ratio. Schools that are able to bring down these metric should be rewarded and recognised more compare to schools that didn't. Doing so may possibly help the cost of tuition to come down.
I may be accused of proposing a levelling-down approach but if you think critically about it, this is not the case. When something has built into a big bubble, it may be time to stick a needle to slowly let out some air.
Let us be delighted to hear some hissing air out from tuition bubble as I believe we will reap the social benefits that will come along with it.
Thursday 3 March 2011
GST-Plus
The finance minister Mr Tharman admitted yesterday in Parliament that the GST in itself is not a progressive tax, but if you add in the the Growth Dividends, Edusave Top-Up, S&CC rebates, U-Save rebates and Medisave Top-Up - voila, you all get an almost perfect taxation system that takes care of the poor, the middle-class and keep the nation on an even keel to a steadier growth path. This strange concotion of GST together with its myriad of handouts and top-up will magically transformed into a progressive tax system. It is also claimed passionately by the majority of the PAP MPs that is the rich that it is subsidizing the poor and the middle class (bottom 60% household) through the GST-plus taxation system.
The simple question - is that true?
I did a simple, crude research using data from the Dept of Statistics with some assumptions and came up with the following table below:-
In summary, GST-plus is positive for the bottom 20% of the household income group, but for most of the population, the burden of GST is greater than the provided GST-plus benefits. If we assume citizens in the broad band of the spectrum from the zero to the 90th percentile do not pay any income tax, GST-plus is regressive for the bulk of the Singaporean population.
I will do an analysis in the future to look at the income tax savings for each percentile group to get a better overall picture. However, I would conjecture at this point that the income tax saving resulting from the implementation of the GST will probably benefit the top 1% of the household income group more than anybody else.
Anyway, the overall picture that emerges from this simple analysis (which stand to be challenged and corrected) do not seems to be close to what the finance minister and his party MPs are claiming in the recent Budget debate.
The simple question - is that true?
I did a simple, crude research using data from the Dept of Statistics with some assumptions and came up with the following table below:-
Household Income | 2010 Monthly Income (Dollars) | Transfer Amount (Budget 2011) | Est Expenditure | Est GST | Transfer Amt minus Est GST |
1st – 10th | 1400 | 4181 | 1000 | 840 | 3341 |
11th – 20th | 2681 | 2981 | 1760 | 1478 | 1503 |
21st – 30th | 3757 | 2956 | 2881 | 2420 | 536 |
31st – 40th | 4886 | 2660 | 3256 | 2735 | -75 |
41st – 50th | 5888 | 2660 | 3571 | 3000 | -340 |
51st – 60th | 7016 | 2603 | 4051 | 3403 | -800 |
61st – 70th | 8358 | 2603 | 4532 | 3807 | -1204 |
71st – 80th | 10095 | 2555 | 5305 | 4456 | -1901 |
81st – 90th | 12818 | 1640 | 6078 | 5106 | -3466 |
91st – 100th | 23684 | 740 | 12078 | 10146 | -9406 |
In summary, GST-plus is positive for the bottom 20% of the household income group, but for most of the population, the burden of GST is greater than the provided GST-plus benefits. If we assume citizens in the broad band of the spectrum from the zero to the 90th percentile do not pay any income tax, GST-plus is regressive for the bulk of the Singaporean population.
I will do an analysis in the future to look at the income tax savings for each percentile group to get a better overall picture. However, I would conjecture at this point that the income tax saving resulting from the implementation of the GST will probably benefit the top 1% of the household income group more than anybody else.
Anyway, the overall picture that emerges from this simple analysis (which stand to be challenged and corrected) do not seems to be close to what the finance minister and his party MPs are claiming in the recent Budget debate.
Wednesday 2 March 2011
Hong Kong - No GST!!!
Our budget for 2011 is supposedly designed by the government to be an enticing bag of goodies specifically intended to sweeten the ground before the impending general elections. It is akin to the carpet bombing of the enemy terrain before the ground troops are called upon to claim the final victory for the incumbent. Of course, the analogy is not totally correct as the humans residing in the terrain are not exactly the enemy of the incoming troops. In fact, it would be uncontentious to claim that more than half are friends instead.
Thus, it came as a embarrassing surprise that our closest competitor with a physical and demographic profile akin to ours recently announced a much more generous packet of "ang pow" for their citizens. To be precise, it is an outright cash grant of about $6000 HK dollars to every adult individual more than 18 years to combat the rising inflation . On top of this, there are various rebates given to income earners to lessen their tax burden. You have to bear in mind is that all this is done without the consideration "to sweeten the ground" as there are no impending elections to talk about in Hong Kong in 2011.
You may want to ask - why is Hong Kong government able to be so generous unlike our PAP government, despite the iron-clad fact that our ministers and high-rank civil servants are paid much more to deliver the goods to its people.
Ther clear answer lies in the simple observation that there a a large hole (in fact the largest) in our expediture allocated in the name of national security and sovereignty to defence. This rather obscene sum take up about 28% of the overall government expenditure every year.In 2011, the exact sum is slightly more than $12 Billions. This is the fodder that goes to acquire the fighters, frigates... and also to provide a very luxurious income for the senior officers in the SAF. A number of related GLCs, in particular ST Engineering are kept fed and well taken care by this defence budget. As a matter for comparison, despite the hoo-ha and controversy surrounding the GST, which account for all the spending related tax we have, it amount to $7.9 billion. Not forgetting that the GST rate is now at a rather elevated 7%, it is difficult to see how to grow it further unless consumption increases further. If the rate goes higher, I shudder to predict the trajectory of the people's response.
In Hong Kong, defence expenditure is close to ZERO. So in Singapore, everyone - young or old, employed or unemployed, retirees or not is subsidizing the SAF and its affiliated organizations directly or indirectly to keep it operational and updated. However, it is still a very much an untested elephant.
For me, it means the Singpore will always remain uncompetitive vis-a-vis HongKong at a fundamental level in terms of optimising our human and financial resources.
Thus, it came as a embarrassing surprise that our closest competitor with a physical and demographic profile akin to ours recently announced a much more generous packet of "ang pow" for their citizens. To be precise, it is an outright cash grant of about $6000 HK dollars to every adult individual more than 18 years to combat the rising inflation . On top of this, there are various rebates given to income earners to lessen their tax burden. You have to bear in mind is that all this is done without the consideration "to sweeten the ground" as there are no impending elections to talk about in Hong Kong in 2011.
You may want to ask - why is Hong Kong government able to be so generous unlike our PAP government, despite the iron-clad fact that our ministers and high-rank civil servants are paid much more to deliver the goods to its people.
Ther clear answer lies in the simple observation that there a a large hole (in fact the largest) in our expediture allocated in the name of national security and sovereignty to defence. This rather obscene sum take up about 28% of the overall government expenditure every year.In 2011, the exact sum is slightly more than $12 Billions. This is the fodder that goes to acquire the fighters, frigates... and also to provide a very luxurious income for the senior officers in the SAF. A number of related GLCs, in particular ST Engineering are kept fed and well taken care by this defence budget. As a matter for comparison, despite the hoo-ha and controversy surrounding the GST, which account for all the spending related tax we have, it amount to $7.9 billion. Not forgetting that the GST rate is now at a rather elevated 7%, it is difficult to see how to grow it further unless consumption increases further. If the rate goes higher, I shudder to predict the trajectory of the people's response.
In Hong Kong, defence expenditure is close to ZERO. So in Singapore, everyone - young or old, employed or unemployed, retirees or not is subsidizing the SAF and its affiliated organizations directly or indirectly to keep it operational and updated. However, it is still a very much an untested elephant.
For me, it means the Singpore will always remain uncompetitive vis-a-vis HongKong at a fundamental level in terms of optimising our human and financial resources.
A Note on GST
Recently, rising inflation is probably one of the most talked-about topic in Singapore and also elsewhere in the world. Witnessed the domino-like toppling of entrenched authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt .....Against the backdrop is consistently one of bulging under-employed or unemployed youth population, sky-rocketing commodities prices, growing intolerance to corruption amongst the existing ruling elites and their circle of cronies etc.
Over here in miniature Singapore, the situation is considerably milder, but we must not underestimate the hardships felt by a growing segment of the population whose incomes level have remain stagnant over the last 5 years fighting a day-to-day existential existence against the rising cost of living brought about increasing cost of basic necessities. The huge influx of immigrants over the last five years may have added a few percentage points to our GDP growth, but for a large segment of the populace, what they are getting in return for bearing with the huge the influx are wages suppression, competition for prized jobs and public infrastructure.
Hence, there is a growing chorus of calls for the abolition of the GST, at least for the basic necessities that provide for a decent living. After all, why do we want to tax the young, the poor, the unemployed and the retirees? It is therefore heartening to witness the opposition parties taking up this call, but the reaction of the ruling elites is almost as predictable as the sun rising from the east ie like a proud cockerel perched on a high rock with its beak pointing into the air. There isn't the slightest attempt to cock its ears and listen to what the other side is trying to say.
Christopher De Souza, lawyer by profession with scant understanding of economics 101, I would assumed, attempted to demolished LTK's argument for GST reduction of 2% from the existing 7% to 5% by claiming that "High income earners, we know, consume more and therefore pay higher GST." While I thoroughly agree that the high-income individual pay a higher absolute amount for GST compare to a low-income individual, there remain a strong case to look at the abolition of GST for basic necessities to alleviate the cost pressures felt by a substantial portion of the under-privileged. Remember, 7% off the basic necessities would mean their cost of living will go down by an average of 4% to 6% for most people.
So far, I could only see two possible objections for such a proposal. Firstly, there is a significant proportion of foreign workers in Singapore, so GST is a way to ensure that they help to contribute to the nation budget since they are also the implicit beneficiary of our national infrastructure. To zero off GST even for the basic necessities would then remove the contribution from such a group that do rightly have to contribute to their host country. Secondly, there could seriously be an issue in terms of implementing a system of GST excluding the basic necessities.
In both cases, there is merit to examine more closely on the suggestion than to brush aside such proposal with the stern look of a father looking at an over-indulgent child
Over here in miniature Singapore, the situation is considerably milder, but we must not underestimate the hardships felt by a growing segment of the population whose incomes level have remain stagnant over the last 5 years fighting a day-to-day existential existence against the rising cost of living brought about increasing cost of basic necessities. The huge influx of immigrants over the last five years may have added a few percentage points to our GDP growth, but for a large segment of the populace, what they are getting in return for bearing with the huge the influx are wages suppression, competition for prized jobs and public infrastructure.
Hence, there is a growing chorus of calls for the abolition of the GST, at least for the basic necessities that provide for a decent living. After all, why do we want to tax the young, the poor, the unemployed and the retirees? It is therefore heartening to witness the opposition parties taking up this call, but the reaction of the ruling elites is almost as predictable as the sun rising from the east ie like a proud cockerel perched on a high rock with its beak pointing into the air. There isn't the slightest attempt to cock its ears and listen to what the other side is trying to say.
Christopher De Souza, lawyer by profession with scant understanding of economics 101, I would assumed, attempted to demolished LTK's argument for GST reduction of 2% from the existing 7% to 5% by claiming that "High income earners, we know, consume more and therefore pay higher GST." While I thoroughly agree that the high-income individual pay a higher absolute amount for GST compare to a low-income individual, there remain a strong case to look at the abolition of GST for basic necessities to alleviate the cost pressures felt by a substantial portion of the under-privileged. Remember, 7% off the basic necessities would mean their cost of living will go down by an average of 4% to 6% for most people.
So far, I could only see two possible objections for such a proposal. Firstly, there is a significant proportion of foreign workers in Singapore, so GST is a way to ensure that they help to contribute to the nation budget since they are also the implicit beneficiary of our national infrastructure. To zero off GST even for the basic necessities would then remove the contribution from such a group that do rightly have to contribute to their host country. Secondly, there could seriously be an issue in terms of implementing a system of GST excluding the basic necessities.
In both cases, there is merit to examine more closely on the suggestion than to brush aside such proposal with the stern look of a father looking at an over-indulgent child
Tuesday 1 March 2011
A Perspective on YOG
We live in a globalized world where often the model of competition and cooperation is seen between cities rather than countries. Thus, when the Singapore government examine the competitiveness and the vibrancy of the country, they often benchmark it against other highly globalized cities like New York , London , Sydney
While there are concrete and solid premises for doing so and we must continue to do so whenever we find an opportunity worth the while, we must always be mindful that we are spending the country hard-earned resources on such endeavours. The values of our founding forefather like Dr Goh Keng Swee who espoused a strict sense of frugality and governance in public spending remain essential ethos that we must hold dear in our hearts in spite of the changing global environment. A case in point is the spendthrift Americans are returning to a new sense of austerity after decades of over indulgence and consumption, abruptly terminated by the implosion of the Great Recession.
A case in point is the recent YOG event which we can performed an impassioned analysis on the cost and benefit analysis. We spent about $387M on the event not including the time and resources of thousands of volunteers roped in from various organizations and schools to assist in the event execution. If you calculate the actual total cost to the host country, I will not be surprised that it will hit the half billion mark easily. What are the returns?
An estimate of less than $10M from sales receipts is achieved through the 13-day event including entrance tickets and souvenir sales.There is little or no widespread international public media interest in the event even in neighbouring Asean countries. It was ultimately an event marked by a lack of buzz and low level of participation by major sporting nations. The poor level of participation in the games is probably well summed up in the six teams contesting for the soccer championship including Zimbabwe , Cuba , Bolivia , Vanuatu and Montenegro and Singapore
To be objective, the machinery were put in place to execute a successful games but there just does not have the sufficient and necessary key ingredients to make it so. Some are probably due to factors beyond our control. YOG is a first time event, so there are neither the deep historical roots nor strengths that can be marshalled to ensure that it will command the publicity and interest like a Summer Olympics or World Cup. In this stance, the level of interest at the international level has fallen deeply on the wrong side of the pendulum.
While YOG is definitely not the success as touted by the media, there is no need to dwell on it like a sore thumb. In fact, we should learned from our mistakes and employ a more hard-nosed attitude when looking at hosting some of these “mega events” to promote Singapore
We must always remember that it took Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then PM two years to convince Dr Goh to finance the National Stadium. He was concerned that the Stadium will be under-utilized and the $1 million spent building it wasted. It is opportune at this juncture, to reinvigorate the values of founding father to guide and formulate policies and decisions for our nation moving forward.
Against the current global backdrop, austerity is the new buzzword. Governments in many developed countries are heavily burden with high level of public debt. YOG was bid in the midst of a worldwide bubble. In Singapore
It is beneficial to consider in the future that if the nation is to invest on a high profile event costing more than $100 million for example and the tangible benefits cannot be quantify to recover more than 50% of cost, a public discourse should be carried rather than going ahead based on some vague argument of intangible benefits. If a high ranking official intends to overwrite the public opinion in such an instance, his performance should also be on the record. In this way, we encourage transparency, and risk-taking in public service will be rewarded or penalized accordingly depending on the eventual outcome.
This article is written as I feel that we as a nation have received the short end of the stick in organizing the YOG on behalf of the IOC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)