Monday, December 29, 2008 20:43
Growing income gap threatens social fabric
In Main Stories, Ravi Philemon, Top Story • 2,223 views • 41 Comments
Ravi Philemon / Writer
Forty years ago, there was a very different Singapore. Singapore was a third world country with a GNP per capita of less than US$320. The city’s population was then growing rapidly, unemployment was rising at over 13 per cent per year and its infrastructure was poor. To add to these woes, more than two-thirds of its population was living in slums and squatter settlements on the city’s fringe.
It was then that Singapore embarked on a rapid industrialisation programme to create new jobs and to promote economic development. The government of Singapore also gradually adopted neo-liberal economic policies which seemed to benefit Singapore society as a whole. Singapore was soon transformed from a colonial urban slum into a first-world city.
However the same neo-liberal economic policies and the export-oriented economics, which contributed to the emergence of Singapore to be one of the richest countries in the world, has disproportionately lifted the top-tier of society while leaving a growing number of low-wage earners in the economic lurch.
Income gap – an expanding gulf
Between the years 2005 to 2007, the income for families in the upper echelons grew by 6 to 11%, whereas those in the bottom, only saw their income increase by between 3 and 4%. Official data which showed that 20% of the national households were suffering from declining income was released just after the last general elections. When Mr. Brown, a Today newspaper columnist, questioned why this data was released after and not before the elections, his regular column in the newspaper was abruptly terminated.
But the fact remains, income disparity in Singapore has grown markedly in Singapore, far more than most developed countries in the region like Japan, Korea and Taiwan and even developing countries which have also experienced long periods of growth. A November 9, 2007 Reuters Article, “Singapore’s economic boom widens income gap”, by Melanie Lee, highlights this inequality by comparing two very real people, who live in the opposite ends of the income disparity spectrum.
Although some may argue that the growing income disparity is but the effects of the inevitable need for globalisation and because of the open nature of the economy of Singapore, there are other factors which have made this inequity more acute.
Government policies
One major factor is the education policies, which is strongly biased towards the cognitive elite. Statistics show that well-educated families provide better opportunities, encouragement, exposure and developmental support for their children. As a result, children from these well-to-do Singaporean families enter better schools, gain university education and benefit from various study options and so continue to command high salaries and continue the upward spiral; while the children who are not from the cognitive elite are down-trodden and are limited in each step, pushing them into a downward spiral. The utilitarian ideals of meritocracy in education, which has limited the options for large numbers of school goers, does subtly distort the social fabric of Singapore by creating two extremes that may never meet, except with appropriate interventions and affirmative actions.
Another factor which contributes in a major way to the growing income inequity is the recent adaptations to the tax structure. The recent reductions in the personal tax base benefits the higher income groups more than the lower income segment. This is further exemplified by the exemption of interest from income tax. The corporate income tax has also been progressively reduced over the years, from 40% in the 1960s to 18% currently. With the reductions to the personal and corporate income taxes, the government implemented the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in April 1994; and since then has raised the GST from 3% to the current 7%. Like any other direct consumption tax, GST is regressive in nature as it undermines the equalizing role of the taxation policy, as it equally affects the rich and the poor. Even the GST offset packages do little to ease the pain of the low and middle income households.
The government’s manpower policies towards attracting foreign talent are another major factor which contributes to the growing income gap. The number of foreign workers has tripled between the years of 1990 to 2005. Foreign workers currently make up 30% of the labour force in Singapore. Although the spillover effect from the expatriates has helped to increase the salaries of the locally trained professionals and the managers, the same spillover effect of workers from under-developed or developing countries like India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Philippines, has artificially kept the salaries of the Singaporean semi-skilled and the unskilled workers low.
The efficiency with which law and order is dispensed in Singapore is one of the main reasons why Singapore is placed at the helm of the globalised world. The growing income inequality, if left unchecked, can have profound ill effects, which may affect the good standing of Singapore in the globalised world. This is especially so for a service-oriented economy and a multi-religious society like Singapore. Perceived biases from those in the lower end of the income disparity spectrum could trigger social unrest; and crime and mortality rates may also increase due to the sense of vulnerability felt by this group.
Some suggestions
So, what should the government of Singapore do to arrest the growing income disparity? Of course there are no easy solutions. The introduction of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Life Scheme by the government is one move in the right direction. But more should be done and the following are good suggestions:
- A Living Wage Scheme should be explored and implemented to reduce inequality of incomes.
- Adopt a progressive tax structure for personal, corporate and Goods & Services taxes. In addition, the government of Singapore should consider adopting Earned Income Tax Credit (EITF) with graduated tax rates, which has been used by the United States of America successfully to deal effectively with income disparity since 1975 lifting more than 5 million people since its implementation from federal poverty lines; and have since been adopted by other countries like United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France and the Netherlands.
- The Central Provident Fund which in essence is a single-tiered social security and pension system is not able to meet the ageing challenges of Singapore. As such, there is a real need to develop a multi-tiered social security and pension system, which could stunt the growth of income inequality and would also ensure that gains from economic growth are more widely distributed.
The growing income disparity is an issue that cannot be altered, but it is also an issue that cannot be ignored, as it threatens to tear the social fabric of Singapore. History does show that there is only this much the poor and oppressed can bear before they start fighting for sustenance and relief from abject poverty. It would be good for the government of Singapore to learn from history and provide the necessary relief to those at the lower levels of society lest we return to the state we were in 40 years ago, to the era of pre-independence.
Headline picture from Reuters.
———–
Related posts:
41 Comments
I speak my mind
Dell
Insightful, and so important to know. I might suggest that this is the stuff Singapore’s social fabric is made of; the anti-welfarist ‘meritocracy’ which is so often championed as a core value has meant that inequality is, in many ways, implicitly acceptable. Since it is apparently only the hardworking, industrious (and de facto, academically high-achieving) who will do well, those who don’t are therefore lazy (a label often associated with racial connotations). Of course, it is difficult to accuse the state of doing nothing to help, since the latter are dealt with by the voluntary sector.
tiredsingaporeans
This is the end result of one ambitious yet selfish person who is always hungry for money and power. To achieve his lone ambition, ruthless and heartless became himself and even willing to leave behind those folks who were once been supporting him to power all these long years. This situation happens when those blind following another blind without knowing that they are infact being lured slowly but surely to poverty and sufferings to come.
Parchiu
I talked to a few local u educated friends.
i said that most young people in the work force are degree holders.
2 of them said that this should not be the case as
a society should not have too many degree holders,
there should be a pool of poly grads who do not take up degree and if most are degree holders, that is not right.
i was appalled by their narrow thinking.
i told them in this day and age where more and more degree holders are produced in the world, and globalization and the use of distance learning and internet and technology and part time degree courses, there will definitely be more degree holders.
further more, they should not believe that the poly grads should be forced to remain as poly grads forever. poly grads who feel like taking a degree should just go and take a degree and pass it. there are plenty of overseas universities who would accept them. local uni’s as well. can do distance learning and via web as well.
when a country has mostly degree holders, the value of degree may drop some what. but this is a problem that some planners need to look at. uni grads should not hold narrow mindset that the society owes them a living. moreover, a poly grad will pass a degree as long as they want to and try hard enough. nowadays, learning is easily than ever before.
i juz wanna tell u people that such grads exist with this kinds of mindset. having a degree is like not rare anymore. having a degree should not make one feel elitist. times have changed.
it is an inevitable consequence of economic development. even the bible says so. to those who have much, more will be given (the parable of the 3 servants).
the pap was once a democratic socialist party BUT once it has tasted power, it dropped all pretence of democracy and socialism. they were kicked out of the socialist international! something which bugs mm no end! anyway they got what they wanted! singapore is neither socialist nor democratic. the only semblance to democracy is the one man one vote thingee. even then, not all have the vote because there are no elections since its been walkover after walkover and the favoured mps ride on the coat tails of the “so-called” heavyweights!
degree king
they say about 37 degree normal. one time, i got 40 degree!i end up in hospital.
ZZZZZ zzzzzz
(1) Property: Private property owners enjoys en-bloc sales and policies that can double, triple or quadruple their already rich assets. HDB flat owners do not have these enjoyment. Their(HDB) Selective En-bloc Redevelopment means they have to take a loan to buy the new replacement flat/renovate the new flat.
(2) Taxes: Income and company taxes have been falling a lot in recent years to compete with Hong Kong. The short-fall of these cuts are recouped from increases from GST. Again, the poor suffer from these as they do not pay much, if any at all of income or company taxes, but end up paying more in the form of direct tax, GST.
(3) Transport: Prices of private transport (cars) have been falling, by as much as 60%. However, for public transport, there is no such luck, only gradual increase in prices, one way only.
tiredman
It is greed. Yes, greed can favors improvement. However, there are people who are not greedy. Probably, they are the one that are being left out. I believe policies are being made for people who love themselves more than others. For example, taking away sits from the buses and MRTs while wishfully think that people would give away their sit to the needy is crazy. Service providers are sending bad signal to the passengers. If the service providers are greedy for money then I am greedy for comfort. (I have learnt a way from the people on how to avoid giving up seats: pretend to sleep) This is a negative public education especially to the youngsters.
Singaporeans not only are fighting each other for scarce resource, they are also fighting with foreigners. To make thing worse, (I feel that) Singaporeans already with so many obligations to fulfill are being treated equally as those foreigners make these group of people who are less greedy worse off.
My dad was once a supporter of PAP. He had worked hard for all his life and in the end lost his job to young people. He is old and his company asked him to leave. He is not able to find another job of the same salary and end up working as a security guard, earning miserable money. He is a reflection of what might happen to me in future and this will not happen to me. Gracious society? Should I support PAP? Smile at you when you are young. Stab, stab from behind when you become an old fool.
please prove conclusively that all the condemnation of PAP online will translate into actual votes. otherwise, it will be what I have dubbed anti-PAP syndrome.
i believe the government is closing the walls on itself in a defensive response, in which it seeks to perpetuate policies(existing) to keep their supporters and maintain its power base at the expense of many others.
if the government continue to ignore the people and behave like they know best, i can only say good luck. give singapore 15-20 more years, and we will be down the drain.
patriot
Hi;
for many years, there have been calls to vote out the Ruling Party and the calls are getting louder each year.
And maybe this has led to the Ruling Party mooting a One Party Rule System as has been broached by the PM Lee Hsien Loong himself. He must have been seriously thinking about this Single Party Rule because of the rising unhappiness of the citizens as well as the feasibility of achieving this objective of a Single Party Rule.
Is it possible for him to persuade the Two Elected Opposition Parliamentarians namely Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong to his PAP side and effect a One Party Rule? Can this then results in no voting(election). Will such manoeuvre be legitimized ?
Somehow, there is a nagging feel that PM Lee and his Cabinet will work towards a One Party Rule System.
patriot
Loyola
Patriot,
That’s nothing but a bad joke man..
patriot
Hi Loyola;
it will be fine if it’s a bad joke, but joke can be hint and there is serious joke too.
patriot
patriot
By the way, do treat my mulling(in Post#10) as hypothesis or even my personal wild imagination.
patriot
blogged blogger
Looking beyond what has been mentioned, what can us in the society contribute?
Let’s look at our entertainment scene…the IRs are going to be opened in about 1 year (okay, partially opened). They will be open 24/7 like how, say Macau or Las Vegas has been operating…but with such an operating system, will our workers (service staff) be committed to work such hours to fit into this new industry?
Look at the food outlets, shopping hours and transport system today…I don’t the workers will fit into this industry…this is a good indicator that although new jobs will be opened to locals, they will not be prepared to take up these jobs because the opportunity cost is too high in our terms (time, family, friends…). So what happens…if you guess foreign labour, then in my sense, you will be right..and this is just one industry I’m talking about. This is just a theory that I’ve been thinking about our nightlife.
Taking another perspective into this issue, it’s not just the income gap that matters. Singaporeans expect a ‘perfect’ lifestyle. They have expectations that are just way to high to meet. Not only must you have a high income, your family background must also be perfect…no criminals, divorces, separations blah blah…circumstances where the individual cannot control…and friends gossip behind your back…people judge you in everything…imho, so there are many moving stories within us that are kept in the closet.
Lastly, because of our huge population density, the rich and the poor live in very close proximity. Next to an HDB estate is a top-graded school and a condominium…several streets down the road and you see a street filled with semi-Ds…it’s not like in America where such estates are separated by miles…a walk along any road would be the same here. So it’s inevitable people would compare and contrast. The poor get sick of the comparison and pressure, and keep to themselves while the rich show off their prized vehicles on the local streets…add school performance into the picture and you see our students being under a tremendous amount of stress to climb up the social ladder.
Oh wait, there’s also our so called new media where we see the rich kids showing off photos of them and merchandise (cars, gadgets, food, alcohol…)
Being a poor kid myself, of course I would kill to get these items once in a while…before commonsense comes to me and tells me that working hard for it is the better option.
So unless something is done…don’t be surprised there is a surge in crime in the following years to come.
Happy New Year all!
Lee hong poo
social fabric…. oh come on…… u think they care….. money maybe…. what a 1st world country
confucius
the author seems to suggest “managing money” is the way to go except that, you need to have money before you can even manage the money “profitably”
so one group said, we have created the wealth and therefore, we are in the best position to also expend it.
the other group said, no, it’s our money, we want to have a say how it should be spent
then came a kaypoh and said, why don’t you infantile sit down and discuss over how to split the spoil?
the first group said sure but on condition you win a fair contest.
the second group said sure but on condition someone die first.
so a wise writer interjected the impasse by saying, you can’t alter the disparities however, you can alter the disputation.
loop
If eveyone gets a degree, degree holders will need to work as cleaners also. Of coz, some u grad does not want to see more people gets a degree.
Komnenos
Who knows that the growing disparity will breed local born extremist.
george says:
At the heart of the income disparity is the total and unjustified disdain by the govt for manual labour and ‘low tech’ skills. It is this very blatant discrimination against physical labour and skills that is at the root of the poor salaries for a host of ‘dirty’ but very necessary jobs that NEED to be done. Going by the laws of scarcity people doing such jobs should be adequately compensated. Society can only be the richer for it if their contributions are adequately rewarded.
I read the following quote in the Readers’ Digest a long time ago on a garbage men’s strike in the city of New York:
“To the garbage collectors, the individual householders are nothing but GARBAGE PRODUCERS.”
nickname
The government shows little inclination towards redistributive taxation, on the grounds that top talent is mobile and suppressing top bracket wages would limit our ability to attract such talent. But that is only a problem when people are told there’s nothing wrong with making big bucks when others remain poor. It boils down to the fundamental view that humans are material creatures driven primarily by material needs, a Lee Kuan Yewish argument, and this principle is applied as well to ministerial wages.
Unfortunately when such a principle becomes official policy there’s a tendency for reinforcement. The Bolsheviks saw the need for the education system to turn out New Socialist Men. I think we do too.
happy 2009 : the suay fryer power fiasco (chicken wing fryer)
9) me on December 30th, 2008 12.45 am
I agree that many do have real reason to complain.
however, that does not translate into action or results.
the reason , can be a few, as someone mentioned is possibly ABC syndrome.
Apathetic By Choice – they know the problem, the issues, but choose to ignore if not avoid talking or discussing or facing these problems or questions headon. as humans operate based on incentives, I suspect their behavior is dictated by vest interests and inexperience in other forms of system.
People when come to making decision will think, hey, everything is done by them. If not choose them, choose who? so, some who went to LTK rally (low torque car rally) supporting , eventually changed mind.
juz me 1.123 cents.
Gilbert Goh
I do agreed wit Ravi that income gap may prove to be the ruling party’s achille heel.
For one, many will be suffering now especially those earning between $2000 to $2500 with three dependents – wife and two kids. Many could not even afford to provide for their ageing parents. That is probably why some old folks got to work as cleaners in foodcourt.
Those who are retrenched will also face severe hardship due to a lack of govt financial aid viz a viz unemployment benefit.
A minimum wage policy is one of the best bet against the population earning much less than the country’s economic prosperity. If not for minimum wage policy, we will continue to see the have and the have-nots getting more apparent fuelling up much social unrest. Already a new lawyer can earn $4k a month whereas an O level salesman earning $2k and below.
The lawyer has an eye for at least $5k or more within a year or two whereas the salesman needs to work very hard to earn at least $2.5k after a year or two depending on his sales. Let’s not even talk about those top guns corporate CEOs who all draw million dollar package.
The gap truly has grown further apart since ten years ago and is more apparent now. Many became millionaires lst year more so because of the endbloc windfall.
I have a friend who is already a multi millionaire and when his Farrer Court condo got endbloc it was an extra $2 million on top of his multi million fat bank account. I wonder how many people will benefit if he donated his $2 million to the poor and needy.
Obviously, Singaporeans all live from hand to mouth saving little for their retirement. We all need drastic changes for our country or else we perish!
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
“If eveyone gets a degree, degree holders will need to work as cleaners also.”
Uh.. then will be a Masters (PHD) In Public Sanitation lor
tiredsingaporean
22) Gilbert Goh on December 30th, 2008 11.42 am
We all need drastic changes for our country or else we perish!
I would think this is what exactly our elites would like to see, so they can bring in more FW & FT to replace those who will perish by giving them free citizenships, this way, they can still keep them in power for many more years to come.
patriot
Gilbert Goh: “We all need drastic changes for our country or else we perish!”, unquote.
Cannot agree more!
Before we perish, we will have to suffer hardships, rising crimes, depressions/mental breakdowns, marriage/family breakups, homeless wanderers, homicides and other social ills. It will be scary!
The State Managers must come out from their ivory towers, take public transports, have some meals in foodcourts, buy sundries and groceries at NTUC/Cheers Retail Outlets, buy fish and meats/poultries at wet markets and see for themselves how much a family of four members have to spent on basic neccessities on top of their house mortgages, schooling fees/expenditures and health needs.
Parliamentarians have to ask themselves how fair they have been treating the people with raising the costs of livings incessantly, search their consciences and ask themselves if they had been humane towards their citizens.
ARE YOU(Parliamentarians) ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR PEOPLE? AND YOUR DUTIES AS LEADERS? Ask, ask and ask; please do!
patriot
Observer (SG-HK)
On the political front, until we have courageous and able alternatives that coincide timely with the election, the best hope we all could count on is for the current ruling party to miraculously come to their conscience and have mercy on its suffering citizenry (the possibility of this happening is next to zero). For the time being and may be until the year 2020 or beyond, I seriously doubted there will be drastic changes happening in this nation (with one uncertain exception, the passing of the shadow helmsman perhaps but one can never speculate what will happen come what may). My dear friend Patriot responded with a very tantalizing hypothesis and I do agree with him. We may even see a total walk-over come next election (as the expression goes: if you can’t beat them, join them). The chances of this happening are much higher than the former scenario.
There are many valid points raised and without a doubt, another call for reflection amongst Singaporeans. Much had been said in the past and yet some very rational and sensible suggestions (at least to a majority of us readers and posters of TOC) had spiraled into the “black hole” and I believe the little strings-attached changes we see are not convincing enough that significant issues such as income gap bridging is given the priority to seek for a more prudent resolution. Instead, it appears that it is ever widening with the ever insatiable appetite of the human kind and in particular the “greed lord” of the bunch. Yes, indeed history had served us and reminded us what we once were some 40 over years ago and how our older generation of people had fought their way and help build this nation to where it is today. But peel off the epidemic of this income gap bridging issue and seen in a different perspective, it is indeed quite a daunting task to tackle and have an absolute fool-proof plan to satisfy all.
Purely from a business perspective, Meritocracy, if deployed with absolute impartial judgment is a great tool for bridging the income gap. However, the biggest factor that curtails meritocracy lies with the key holders (in this aspects are employers). If and only if majority of key holders are staunched advocates and believers who upheld the TRUE & GENUINE VALUES of meritocracy with undoubting integrity and are capable of exercising impartiality do we see the income gap bridging narrowed but of course this must coupled with dedicated working Singaporeans determined to improve their lifestyle regardless of whether they are degree holders or otherwise. The social and business mentality of key holders also plays a key role in aiding the bridging of the income gap. Does one select its employee based on paper qualification or based on the experiences required of the work? Obviously there are countless other driving factors that dictate the success of using meritocracy to bridge the income gap. How the balances of employed are drawn largely dependent on these key holders exposure, experience and its core value believes.
The dark side of meritocracy breeds infighting and disloyalty if one’s mind is corruptive and cognitive like a weasel. Evidently, back stabbing incidences to stifle competition or purely out to inflict harm and down play the credibility of merits of fellow employees are not uncommon in work place these days. A sad and cruel fact that has been played out throughout this world that advocates meritocracy, simply because we are human beings and complexity is our nature. The only difference we have compared to other living creatures is that we are not totally rid of conscience, sensibility and have the capability to adapt and adopt when situation calls for provided the environment settings within our proximity permit us all to make these adjustments. Rationally and in reality, there are no best of both worlds solution existing and income gap between the rich and poor will persist regardless of which system is being adopted by any governing body as long as capitalism is rudimentary. Perfection only existed in the virtual world.
All eyes (at least mine is) are now trained on January 22, 2009 when the budget plan is reveal. Until then, I will reserve any further comments.
ACACIA
Tiredman, I can sympathise with you, just share with a friend last nite that I’m tired of this whole Singapore dream which has turned to one long nightmare for most of us, and it will be well into our twilight years.
The writing is on the wall, the older folks when you speak to them are now quite disillusioned with the PAP. Whatever their savings are surely but slowly fading away. It is the same with the younger, 30 – 50 age group, a sense of uncertainity and the “good life” slipping through their hands. People are just finding it hard to make ends meet.
Anyway, I would say it again, take the courage to vote the PAP out at the next election, I think the opposition are up to par with them, given a chance. And I would dare say too, the whole social and economic fabric will change for the better for us Singaporeans and perhaps to those living with us. All good things must come to an end , so it will be with the ruling party of the day. We can’t go on like this for the sake of our children.
StrugglingMidClass
Do they care? Obviously not…
tiredsingaporean
yeah right! they prefer to counting how much of those $billions which they stored in their golden vault than to look into how they are going to help the citizens in this bad time
StrugglingMidClass
I think the reason why PAP is still in power is because the poor and hence, the defenseless, will rather settle for 3 square meals a day with the occassional government handout, and avoid the pain of rebuilding this society with a new government. It may take more than an Obama, but several obamas who may inevitably be jailed, sued, bankrupted, punished etc, but one will eventually get through to the people. Will that ever happen? I doubt so.
StrugglingMidClass
besides, everytime an MP starts losing votes, they will reorganize the constituencies so the oppsoition’s votes in the area are carved up. How can the opposition ever win>?
tiredsingaporean
In everything, there is always a beginning and an ending regardless whether good or bad, this is nature by itself and the PApees are no exception and will not escape this cycle of nature. Time will come no matter how hard they try to stay in power, it will soon be degenerating by itself, just like the motion of the wheel of fortune, it never stop so whatever goes up must come down, ultimately. Whether you believe or not, time will tell. Infact, the degenerating is already in motion by observing those continuous screwed ups thats been happening, and more to come.
patriot
Dear Observer(SG-HK);
nice to hear You again and glad to have You sharing your thoughts with us.
About the hypothesis; the sudden mention of one party rule by the prime minister was liked a sudden rain that came with no sign of it coming. I even naively believed that it should be acceptable if the Regime, made up of a single party, is benevolent, benign and rules with consciences. However, I was reminded by some other kind commenters of the likely consequence of abuses that jolted and awoken me.
But, it was mentioned, why was the idea mooted and broached?
I believed that the PM was testing the reactions of the people.
Well, the citizens in the Cyberspace were unanimous in rejecting the System of one party rule. But, if the Rulers find ways to implement it, how could the people counter it? I tried to seek for an explanation for its’ mention and ended up with the hypothesis, but there was no response except Loyola who claimed that it was a joke.
And my dear friend, You came in to make my day, can’t thank You enough!
Wish You and All;
Happy and in Good Health
patriot
Observer (SG-HK)
Dear Patriot,
You are most kind sir. I can empathize with your concerns and I think this is exactly what LHL and his team will do or try to do. Strategically, It is easier to convince a handful of people than a larger group of discontent citizenry. CST is unlikely to participate in the next GE and there is no clear successor worthy enough to challenge them albeit that ward is filled with diehard constituents. LTK will remain as he is and you are not going to see any dramatic improvement or change of style either. This is under the assumption that the zoning remained unchanged (which I suspect is unlikely). Coupled with a few strings-attached handouts here and there come 22 January 2009, and you are likely to expect to see the same old results (may be this time with an even smaller percentage of gain). But of course, we hope we are all wrong about this. What are the chances of us being wrong? Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway, today is the second last day of 2008, hopefully the year of Golden OX will usher in a brand new (better) political home front [it is not a crime to hope and dream], one that we can all exercise our birth rights freely with no strings attached. This I believe will be one of the many resolutions that many TOC readers and posters are hoping for as well. Here’s wishing you my friend and your family, TOC and friends, Readers and Posters of TOC and last but not least my fellow Singaporeans who happen to read this; a stable and healthy 2009. Well wishes also to this twisted world and I certainly hope 2009 will see more love, peace and passion in out fellow human kind. Sometimes, it is good to go back to basics, live in an ordinary and healthy life style free of greed and crafty ploy.
However tough the recession may be or turned out to be, we are strong human beings who can withstand and weather this storm if we all stand united. Life is too short to constantly live in man made anxiety. We need less to live on if we must and we can. We can learn to share if we must and we can. We can learn to care if we must and we can. Giving is a gift we are all accorded with birth, just that some of us have somehow lost it along the way as we progresses. If and only if we care to slow down, stop and take a deep breath, we will probably find that we actually still possess that gift in us. Use it whenever situation calls for and with every little step each one of us take, the world seem brighter with a broader smile.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Observer (SG-HK)
Oops, I must have travelled into the twilight zone. It is indeed the last day of 2008 not second last day. Well, age is really catching up. My sincere apology folks for that big mistakes.
Anyway, an early Happy New Year to all. If you Drink, please remember Don’t Drive. Bless you!!!
moshedyan
[i]If you Drink, please remember Don’t Drive. Bless you!!![/i]
simply because when you sar cornor
your beer will spilled
beer in singapore are expensives as well
hee hee
Well, to start of with, I do not think that everyone can get a degree as people have different financial strength and also intellectual abilities. Secondly, if our society is that educated, we won’t need foreigners to come and take on the top jobs.
A huge income gap will breed jealousy and contempt. And it won’t be surprising, if another JI comes back to life. The government has to be pro-people but PAP seems to have lost its way with the people.
Dreamer
Where developments in Denmark, Sweden, Korea and Japan have been made benchmarks for our own growth, their success to ensure income disparity remain minimal is totally ignored.
It is sad enough to be kept in the dark at the 2006 general elections when critical information that affects decision was deprived, the debate on the subject of income disparity at the 2008 budget debate was disrupted by appalling news of a security lapse that led to Mas Selamat’s escape. That debate subsequently died a natural death.
It is hoped that this New Year 2009, we will get to seriously discuss this phenomenon. Civil Societies should persistently advocate for the marginalised, regardless of langauge, race, religion, nationality, social class, education status and political affiliation. It will be a fearful scenario should the economically-deprived and opportunity-oppressed, left without a voice choose to take the streets. In an Island state where the only way across borders are limited to the two causeways, ferry terminals and airports, very few will have the opportunity to leave the scene. Must it take such a situation before the educated, privileged and capable step forward and participate?
Teo Kueh Liang
The basis for comparing income gap should strictly base upon people who receive wages/salary from an organisation he or she works. I think we should not include businessmen in the comparison category (they base upon their capabilities with potentially high risk incurred in the nature of their trade).
However, for high wage earners such as high-ranking government officials, MPs (almost of them are on part-time basis) and etc are the obvious groups which widen the gulf of income gap. Their wages are proposed and determinded by the Government.
abel
Best wishes and a fair 2009 to all
Being a 60yr old from the lower income group, the govt must annually provide
subsidies on utilities and transport for us earning less than 2k monthly plus
GST rebates.
cjc
Ravi Philemon / WriterThe utilitarian ideals of meritocracy in education, which has limited the options for large numbers of school goers, does subtly distort the social fabric of Singapore by creating two extremes that may never meet, except with appropriate interventions and affirmative actions.
Summary: I don’t think meritocracy is applicable in education at all. I think the relevant issue should be streaming (or banding or tracking). Personally, I do not favour affirmative action. Rather, I support streamlining the curriculum to allow greater flexible and academic mobility, and recognizing the broader aspects of talent.
Meritocracy is the selection of candidates for a job based on their competency, ignoring non-relevant factors like family background, social class, etc. But education is not a job. Students are not employed to do any job. So education has nothing to do with meritocracy.
There might be a confusion between these 4 concepts: meritocracy, elitism, social welfare, and education streaming. I find the first 3 concepts rather well-explained in [1, #90].
The reason I think why the education policy is mistaken to be meritocratic is because students are streamed to different groups based on their learning abilities. But streaming is NOT meritocracy eventhough they loosely share the word “ability” in their definition.
Streaming (which is also practiced elsewhere like Hong Kong, Germany, and Austria) is designed to:
(1a) make teaching more effective (if you have friends who are teachers, they’ll tell you how hard is it to teach a class whose learning standard varies widely)
(1b) allow students to specialize in their strengths
Of course, our common concern is that we don’t want the less privileged, the late boomers, etc to be stuck in a particular stream. But, personally, I do not favour affirmative action for the following reasons:
(2a) Although less privileged children are slightly disadvantaged in the economic and social aspects, I believed the most crucial factor is still the “cultural capital” [1,#18]. Since needy students are already subsidised. Affirmative action do not make up much.
(2b) Affirmative action upset all the pedagogical advantages of streaming described above.
Personally, I think the following are more effective:
(3a) Allow flexible or customised curriculum: Instead of destroy streams altogether, we should make all streams available to ALL students. Within each stream or subject combinations, they’ll be grouped to according to their learning abilities to make teach more effective. Also, we should allow students to switch groups as soon as their learning ability picks up.
(3b) Practice streaming fairly: We should group students according their learning ability, not their social class. Also, we can never deprive any needy student a chance to study as long as he or she qualifies, i.e. subsidize school fees, ECA/CCA training, etc, if necessary.
(3c) Broader appreciation of talent: We should recognise talents in all other aspects which are not necessarily academic. For example sports, music, arts, entrepreneurship, contribution to community, etc
Thanks for voicing this very REAL concern.
Great efforts, but do they really care? I DOUBT!