Tan Kin Lian / Columnist
A Business Times report carried a survey made by a private research firm. It showed the job satisfaction rate of Singapore workers to be the second lowest in the world (the worst is Japan).
Although the survey is made among workers in the finance industry, I believe that it does reflect the views of workers in general. I carried out a survey in my blog to find out more. (See here)
My survey
I asked the question, does the findings in the Business Times report reflect the actual situation in Singapore?
43.6% said that the actual situation in Singapore is worse than reported, while 5.5% said that it is quite satisfactory (i.e. better than reported). 38.2% said that the report reflects the actual situation correctly.
What are their reasons for the low rate of job satisfaction?
The top factors are lack of appreciation by the employer (78.2%), the government is not caring (72.7%) and poor work life balance (72.7%). This is followed by long working hours (61.8%), wide wage gaps (60.0%) and unfairness in the workplace (60.0%).
Specific comments made by the respondents include the following:
a) Singaporeans usually flock to jobs with the highest pay, rather than work that interest them.
b) Too many foreign workers are competing for jobs and driving down the wages, giving no job security for Singaporeans.
c) Some employers take advantage of the downturn to exploit workers with unfair terms in the employment contract.
d) Those in middle or low income have to work days and nights just enough to pay our monthly bills to the government.
Advanced countries
A vast majority (77.8%) said that the job environment in Singapore is worse that other advanced countries. 18.5% said that it is about the same, but only 3.7% said that it is better.
Some specific comments are:
a) Bad behaviour of employers who are given priority by the government
b) Some countries have minimum wage to allow citizens to maintain a certain standard of living. When times are bad, they can fall back on unemployment benefits. It is difficult for foreigners to apply for the same job that can be done by locals.
c) There is better work life balance, 5 day week, strong social support and better protection by the unions.
Countries in the region
To my surprise, 44.4% of respondents said that the work environment in Singapore is worse than other countries in the region, while 25.9% said that it is better. 29.5% said that it is about the same.
Some specific comments are:
a) It’s cheaper to live in places like Thailand and the work environment is much more relaxed. b) Life in other region might be tough, but not so stressful.
c) In the other countries, the rental of the workplace is cheaper. The employer can provide better facilities for workers. The workers are happier as the work pace is more relaxing and the income earned is enough to comfortably cover their monthly expenses.
Improve the work environment
Here are their suggestions to improve the work environment:
a) The Government should put in more rigorous rules to make it more difficult to hire foreign workers.
b) There should be better work life balance.
c) The Ministry of Manpower should set up a department to assist exploited workers.
d) I do not mind lower pay, but less work and more meaningful work and be treated with more respect.
e) The government has to implement a minimum wage, so that our Singapore workers can at least have enough money to foot their monthly bills and buy food.
Here are some strong negative comments:
a) Who will listen to your suggestion? Here, money making come first, the rest is secondary.
b) I have try to get out of this country.
My observations
The Singapore Government believes in the free market. It even allows an influx of foreign workers to come into the country to compete for the jobs that can be done by Singaporeans. This leads to lower wages. There is no minimum wage in Singapore.
To survive and meet the high cost of living in Singapore, many workers have to work long hours to earn enough to pay the monthly expenses. Some office workers put in long hours without additional pay, just to increase the productivity and to secure their jobs. If they work less, they stand the risk of losing their jobs to other people, including the foreign workers.
The long working hours lead to stress and a poor work life balance. These negative factors are mentioned by most of the participants.
There are inadequate measures to protect the living standards of the workers – i.e. no minimum wage and the freedom for employers to set the employment terms. The trade unions in Singapore are perceived to be cooperative and pro-employer and are not looking after the interests of the workers.
In the advanced countries, the trade unions take a more pro-active stance to fight for better pay, working conditions and a better standard of life for the workers. The unemployed workers are given an allowed unemployment benefit for a certain period. These countries appear to be able to doing well, even though they appear to be burdened by the high cost of the social benefits. They may not achieve high economic growth, but the economic results are shared more fairly by the population.
It is time for Singapore to review our current situation and see if it is possible to strike a better balance between the profitability of businesses and fair working conditions. This will lead to a better score in job satisfaction among the international ratings.
———–
Come and support the event at Speakers’ Corner this Saturday, 9 May, 5pm: “Protect the Singaporean worker“.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
If the Singapore Gov trust the Workers, he will put the $600 into the hand of Unemployed Workers other than those still in their jobs with monthly income.
Gov has control every aspects of Singaporean life collect all monthly bills in on hand and the other hand force down the wages thru their employment pass policies.
PAP simply don’t trust average Singaporean Worker!
The side effect, nobody dares to give birth here and that further decreases our populations, diluted our arm forces and Singaporeans always get the first blame, for everything that our leader err, which than created further depression, social ungraciousness and resentment living in this dot. Hello, Hello!! are we all still sleeping. Time to open our eyes, wake our mind and exercise our only rights in the coming election.
The polars caps are fast melting, sea water level rises, islands will disappear all due to Global Warming so why are we concerned about job satisfaction. The survival of a nation will be severely under threats by nature…………….Relax & enjoy what is left as tomorrow may never come or be different.
Can’t agree more with 2) David. It is a known fact the MOM do not want a minimum wage and policy that favour workers so that companies, especially the foreign ones can be flexible in hiring and firing workers. If they had all these in place many years ago, the employment scene would be like say Australia, where is would difficult to fire workers. The game now has changed with the bad economic situation where Singaporean are now fighting with the foreigners over the sarce jobs. The government know it and it’s a political bubble just waiting to burst. They are very afraid and don’t seem to have any clear solutions and trying their best to spin one good one after another. But we all know the reality on the ground. I feel very let down by the government and basically they are of little help. Even if we go to the CDC’s ultimately we are let to fend for ourselves. Where is the quality of life? It only comes with lots of money that is “spare change” . Mr Tan’s survey is spot on, we earn the salary just to pay the government bills monthly. And if we delay payment a letter come demanding payment. Where is the Swiss standard of living, only the highly paid ministers and their families , the civil servant enjoy this. My take is, they’re not dented one bit. And I agree with you David, time to excercise our vote decisively.
Let the Singaporeans fight with Foreigners for Jobs!
But none the less, PAP fight with Opposition for the Gov.
Whoever can perform to bring up the economy and reduce inflation.
Let vote them in!
In a truly Democratic Society!!
43.6% said that the actual situation in Singapore is worse than reported, while 5.5% said that it is quite satisfactory (i.e. better than reported). 38.2% said that the report reflects the actual situation correctly.
this is telling you not to believe whatever the govt says. rem this is 154th media.
Anyway, if the govt is really sincerely about helping singaporeans, they should immediately stop hiring so many foreigners by not doing so many projects at this time. Eg of such projects include the IRs and MCE, bloody waste of time and money.
LKY never believe the following, he believe some man are than equal than other and same like his kind are equal to GOD! That why Singapore Workers Suffers!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “
I can believe that there people who are unsatisfied with work, and I can believe that the direct reasons are indeed real, e.g. long working hours, competition from foreign workers, etc.
But I don’t agree it’s a matter of lacking an union that speaks up for “more welfare”. Seeking a political solution does not solve the root of the problem.
Singapore’s small population puts us at a natural disadvantage:
(1) Domestic consumption is too small to create jobs for everyone. This forces us, like most other small nations, to be dependent both exports and imports. Therefore we are forced to compete in the global free market, and this indirectly puts pressure on the domestic labour market.
(2) One purpose of foreign workers is also to reduce the cost of living for Singaporeans, including the low wage workers themselves, although workers in sectors that face competition are naturally at stress.
(3) The small population also results in lack of employment choices. Unlike large nations with diversified economy, people can easily move about to find their job of choice. In Singapore, the large bulk of the economy is planned on the government, for example seaport, airport, IR, biochemical industry, financial MNCs, etc. This makes the economy even more focused, and this creates even more resentment from unsatisfied workers.
Any solution that attempts to improve job satisfaction has to (a) first make sure the economy on the whole has a net gain, (b) increase the diversity of jobs, (c) make sure that the labour market is free so that people can switch to the job of their choice easily, and (d) decrease on the reliance on the government.
I am glad Mr Tan came up with this article.
I have always wanted to know
How can information, in general, be proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is accurate, correct and unbiased ?
I do not know the answer.
But 1 thing I am sure is,
I feel that only through scrutinisation by as many people as possible and if this information still is convincing after that, then, I would feel comfortable to take this info with less pinch of salt.
While I like to Believe things I hear to be true and I respect people who provide information, a believe is still a believe. I mean, in a black and white world, where people providing info to me can be and usually is a stranger, I often question myself, how to know for sure what is true and what is 10% inaccurate due to whatever possible reasons that may exist in this universe?
Thanks Mr Tan for reminding the people to think about information presented to us, many of whom are mere mortals.
In this very challenging times, there is nothing much the unemployed workers
can fall on. Government would rather give money to employers
in the form of Jobs Credit to save jobs. But many employers are still not
recruiting, so those badly affected ones are people seeking jobs to
survive yet cannot find reasonable jobs easily when jobs are scarce.
Do anyone believe in Economic Migration rather than the Stupid Loyalty!
Had ask an Austrialia Agency they required you to get the PR first and the jobs are quite different unlike the IT, Semicond jobs here!
Also enquire China Company but they can pay so high!
Any idea!!!!
I never support Job Credit Scheme. It seem like government is helping the local. It depends. During this time, rational businessman will just keep the money. A businessman might think: It is not my problem. Who cares right if there are more unempolyed? You give me money, I will feel stupid if I do not take the money. In Singapore, businessman is the king. Government supports them and thats bad.
so that the best our high pay government can do…. sick
These days there are NO such thing as Company Loyalty. I was once employed by an MNC………solid as ever, when part of their dept. was acquired by merger and aquisition, it was the Union who approached me rather than the Admin. Dept. of the MNC so what JOB satisfaction are we talking about when the Big boys take you for granted and even for a ride!…………believe in yourself and move on!.
If you find NO Job Satisfaction then destress yourself by listening to Mick Jager’s “I can get no Satisfaction”
Based on my long work experiences in Singapore I already know the situation and so Tan Kin Lian simply confirms all that I know.
Employers are rotten and so are the work places.
I see so many unhappy people at work in sing.
I have worked in both the private and gahmen sectors in four countries and I am able to make comparisons.
So, some people migrate to seek more relaxed countries and to lead happier lives.
What can one do?
The workers and employers must come together, feel determined to make the work places happier and employers must believe that happy workers will make them more productive.
However, based on my experiences employers believe that if I can hammer and bully you and you will fear me and work yourself to death and that is what I as Mr employer wants. Your misery is my happiness. I am number one.
Sad. But, true.
This happened to me and I cannot reveal the place as it is all security and very, very sensitive.
Bad employers and unhappy work places and aren’t we sliding to barbarism.
That is why many quit.
I have left.
Many will be leaving.
They fear the work places in sing.
The gahmen does understand. Only vote to get millions for salary.
can i add to the fact measures to protect local workers must have teeth- the must work. & not just for show.
i have been jobless for “a few” months liao. i went for several interviews for a job that is currently in demand. but the contact has too many unfair terms liao, top that off with a low basic pay.
i not beggar, dun expect me to work any job with a laundry list of terms heavily worded against me. i am Singaporean ok!
What I’m going to say is not going to be taken well here but it has to be said none the less: I’ve worked overseas before and yes the worklife balance is infinitely better than it is here. My boss used to shoo me out of the office by 6pm! Summer Fridays were even better- we were usually done by 4:30pm!
When I came back here, it was a rude shock. My new boss was all for work life balance but here’s how things ended up. The rest of the (Singaporean) workers put in hours way past what was required. What they did I don’t know but they always went home later than I did. Boss started to praise those workers and the rest of us who went home early weren’t. Predictably, everyone started staying late since it’s obvious that boss praise = job well done = better bonus.
Who’s fault was it? Boss? Other workers? Me (and the early leavers)? Govt?
I’ll give you my take: With respect to work life balance, stop blaming the government. If you want your work life balance, it’s got to start from you. You are responsible for your own happiness.
Sorry Mr Tan. I think you’ve brought out some good points and I generally like many of your articles. but I agree with 1c @8 in this case.
re post #17) RighteousSinga on May 8th, 2009 1.06 am
if you do not belong to the group that is regularly worried about social & financial security, i will understand, a little empathy would go a long way.
since you have worked in another country (enjoy a higher social mobility) before, you may not share similiar concerns as those mentioned by Mr Tan Kin Lian.
This PAP govt has always bent backwards to prostrate to foreign investors, bosses and rich capitalists. The NTUC serves as the weapon to silence and suppress workers’ dissent. The so-called Tripatritism epitomises this and seals the fate of the workers. Media and news channels are controlled by the govt so that only pro-govt voices and news are published and broadcast. Judges are appointed by the Executive branch and tenured so independence of the judiciary is an open question raised by many outsiders and Opposition members, who were later sued for millions for defamation. Yet, the govt makes no apologies and do not deem themselves necessary to be accountable and transparent. Public reserves can be lost thru ‘gambling’ in the stock mkts by govt stat boards, town councils and GLCs without having to answer in Parliament except vague and ambiguous replies. Before elections, the govt indulges shamelessly and brazenly in gerrymandeering and passing rules with impugnity from a Parliament which the PAP managed to dominate 82-2 using the prior mentioned tactics. Admission of Chinese from the PRC are granted liberally to boost the ranks of the Chinese to other races ratio, and these PRC PRs can be trusted to multiply like pigs and dogs which they couldnt do back in China.
Thank you, Mr Tan, for writing this article. Your conclusions reflect my real-life work experience. Now if only the PAP-dominated will take action. I doubt so, thus I’m another one who aims to leave this country.
aiyoyo
economy so tough liao, man on the street feel more pressure liao,
got so many debts to pay, family to take care, rising costs etc etc
how to feel satisfy in working?
look at china friends happy go lucky, buy branded goods no close eyes one,
just take n go. alamak china now very different liao from
people impression (last time), they’re $$$$$$
another sad story when look in this country.
aiyoyo
“There is better work life balance, 5 day week, strong social support and better protection by the unions.”
This perhaps the key to worker happiness in Mr Tan’s survey, which is timely and revealing.
I feel we have carried this theory of tripartism too far in Singapore — to the extent that union chiefs sound like company bosses. Union chiefs must put worker interest first, which is to secure salaries and remuneration commensurate with the work required to be done.
Leave the management of the bottom line to the company bosses. They are well trained to do that. Unions should work with company bosses to ensure that a happy workforce will bring abour greater productivity — and which will lead to a better bottom line.
Working longer hours may not necessarily lead to higher productivity. More often, it’s just inefficiency that requires more hours to be spent in the workplace.
Sociolgists might want to carry our studies to determine if the falling birth rate is linked to unhealthy work practices.
I join Mr Tan in calling for holistic solutions to promote work life balance and a happier society.
mice is nice @ post 18
I do care greatly for what is happening in the SIngapore labor force. And I do empathize with those who are out of a job. Mr Tan has brought out several concerns which I share, contrary to what you said. Just because someone has enjoyed social mobility, it does not mean that he does not share your concerns.
And if it makes any difference to you, I’ve not been gainfully employed for the past few months too.
There are many things that the govt can and should do/look into. For example, they should look into the problem of companies hiring cheap service staff from overseas.
But work life balance is a cultural issue. I don’t see how the govt is responsible for the atmosphere created by a worker, his colleagues and boss. Let me give you an example: I have a friend who runs his own firm. He drives his people very hard but he’s also adamant that his workers get out by Friday evening and makes sure they dont’ work on weekends ( He does though! but that’s because he loves what he does).
The firm’s culture of work hard/play hard didn’t come from some government study decreeing that it should be, it came from within. So yes there are many things the govt needs to look into but work life balance, and by that extension- happiness, has to start at an individual level.
re RighteousSinga at post #23
the way you have worded your post sems to speak otherwise.
quote from post #17
////If you want your work life balance, it’s got to start from you. You are responsible for your own happiness.////
its easier said than done for most be it true blue S’pooreans, PRs & FTs.
protecting workers is more a question of financial stability. people who constantly worry about having being replaced, not having enough savings for retirement, rainy days due to sudden major illness, marriage hitting the rocks, not earning enough with 1 job to pay the bills, so on…
work-life-balance (stated in above in bold as a criteria in judging advanced countries) is the next level in worker protection, but its not the basic concern, its more intermediate level concern.
laws can dictate a company’s culture by removing unfair work terms out. as of now, workers at the mercy of companies. work life balance should not be an exception, it should be made the norm. if companies cannot be trusted to initiate such policies into their work culture, laws should be formed to level the playing field.
*IMO, advanced countries are countries that have met or exceeded undeveloped or developing countries in terms of standard of living, with legal protection for fair employment being basic requirement.
Hi friends
Thank you for your comments. I am now in Canada on my vacation (but it also includes checking into the internet in my hotel to read the comments to this article).
#8 1c has used the often-repeated argument that Singapore is a small country, no natural resources to justify the economic and social policies advocated by the Government.
There are many other small countries around the world, such as Denmark, Switzerland, that have to overcome the challenges of size and lack of natural resources. They are able to adopt policies that give a better life to their citizens.
I believe that the policies in Singapore can, and should be, changed to achieve this goal.
The basic problem is that our ministers are not incentivise to look after the well being of ordinary S’poreans. Their pay is pegged to top private sector earners, who are mostly CEOs and owner-bosses of companies.
By allowing free inflow of foreigners, wages are lowered, thus these CEOs’ and bosses’ remuneration will increase (in line with the earnings of the companies they run)…..presto, ministerial salaries will rise too!!
Don’t forget that Jobs Credit apply to PRs as well…..and we all know how easy it is for foreigners to get S’pore PR.
Where is the Solgan “More Good Year” after so many years!
What has NTUC Income become, no longer a Social Enterprise but a profit driven Organisation.
What has POSBank become no longer a people bank!
Denmark’s Flexcurity model deserves further study. Low employment security is compensated with good unemployment insurance and job retraining benefits/programs which has resulted in lowering unemployment and low but decent GDP growth. At the same time, income inequality is very low.
A very key point to the success of these programs is a highly educated workforce. The Danes (and Swiss) have had a 800 year head start. Their populations were already very well educated even before starting these programs. Only 33% of Singaporeans enter tertiary education, in Denmark 59% of the population does so.
If we want to adopt the Danish model, we first have to educate our workforce. This could take at least 1/2 generation.(10-15 years) It will not be as simple as creating a SPUR program.
I’m not 100% convinced that the Danish method works. The results were very commendable but it also occurred during a period of great economic growth (the 1990′s). Denmark may well have prospered with or without the program given the boom. Another cost of the program are the high taxes. Denmark has some of the highest taxes in the world (68% at the top tier). Are we prepared to pay that price?
Hi #27 Lego
The ministers have a duty to the people. They do not need to be incentivised to do their duty. We need leaders who are prepared to look after the welfare of the people, without getting rich in the process. If they want to be rich, they can go to the private sector.
Many leaders in democratic countries earn a modest salary and the public recognition and respect from looking after the welfare of the people. They work hard to get elected.
Hi #30 Righteous People
You said that you are not 100% convinced about the Danish system. Do not wait to be 100% convinced (which is another Singapore trait).
Every system has its positive and negative aspects, and is not 100% perfect. We should choose a system that is likely to work well for us, even if it is not 100% perfect. Our current system has many flaws anyway.
We need adequate taxes to pay for the public services, including health, education, environment, law and order. public transport and a pension for the elderly.
Low taxes does not lead to a better standard of life. It leads to selfishness and exploitation of the weak and poor. It is better to have a more balanced system with higher taxes to provide adequate social benefits..
Thank Mr Tan @ 31 for replying whilst you are on holiday.
First, let me say I tend to be very verbose when i write… so when i wrote “not 100% convinced”, i was using it as a figure of speech. So I will rephrase it more clearly:
I DO NOT BELIEVE that the Danish model works in Singapore because the program relies on a workforce that is much much more highly educated than Singapore currently has.
Therefore, anybody who wants to adopt the Danish model must realize that it’s not going to come about just because you have good unemployment insurance, or the minimum wage. The Danish model can only work when we have a more educated workforce thus any true solution requires us to pump even more resources into education (particularly tertiary). [Regardless of going Danish or not, I hope that we make a commitment to pump more money into education]
Regarding taxes: I agree with Mr Tan that low taxes do not lead to a better standard of life. In fact, I do believe we may have gone too far in lowering our taxes.
In my previous comment, I had mentioned the high taxes that Danish pay for the flexcurity model because I wanted readers to realize that it doesn’t’ come free. Our GST is 7% and we hear non-stop complaining already. Danish GST (known as MOMS over there) is 25%!
Unfortunately, as I read through blogo-sphere, many people give solutions while conveniently omitting the price tag.
I am all for improving benefits and I realize that this will probably result in higher taxes. I am prepared for that. My question for everybody is: Are you prepared to pay the higher cost?
ideas are only good if
1) they are given a chance to prove themselves, “never try never know”.
2) they are not taken whole sale & implimented. some level of customising is needed to fix into local context.
i believe there are many pro (local) worker ideas that are simply not implimented. we already have many capable people running our country, the biggest obstacle is a shift in focus (to pro worker), not the lack of ideas.
i could be wrong, though i hope i am not.
31) Tan Kin Lian on May 9th, 2009 2.15 pm
It is better to have a more balanced system with higher taxes to provide adequate social benefits.
33) RighteousSinga on May 9th, 2009 5.56 pm
Unfortunately, as I read through blogo-sphere, many people give solutions while conveniently omitting the price tag
I agree with RighteousSinga completely. I’m sure that people like Mr Tan knows what balance means, but how many people are willing to contribute more taxes to support more welfare?
Many people assume that taxes from higher income groups alone can finance all the welfare they dream. But doing some rough calculation will reveal that this is insufficient. There are many more people who don’t even pay taxes at all, like senior citizens, children, students, etc. (and it is discouraging see some opposition parties baiting voters with promises of free lunch)
How many people who are already paying taxes are willing to pay even more to support more social welfare without having direct benefits to themselves? How many car owners, who complain that ERP cost is high, have ever think about paying even more road charges and taxes to improve public transport for people who can’t afford cars?
Maybe TOC or Mr. Tan can conduct a survey on this…
Hi #33 and #35
If you ask people, “do you want to pay more tax”, the answer is obviously “no”. However, if you ask “are yo willing to pay more tax, so that you can get an old age pension, unemployment benefit, cheaper transport, cheaper health care and other services”, the answer is likely to be “yes” – for the majority. This is why the advanced countries continue to have these welfare systems.
There is also an economic justification for the welfare system. The state is likely to be able to provide these benefits at lower cost and greater efficiency, compared to individuals buying these services on their own (and being ripped off by profit-oriented businesses). Look at what happened to the investments in the structured products.
It is possible for the Singapore government to offer better welfare benefits without increasing the tax burden. Actually, Singaporeans are already paying a high rate of tax, if GST, COE, ERP, foreign workers levies and high land price (levied by the state) are taken into account.
The state already accumulated so much surplus that they have accumulated so much foreign reserves. It is so sad that one third (or more) of these reserves have been lost through bad investments. If they have been spent on welfare benefits for Singaporeans, so many people would have been better off.
There is no need to raise taxes to provide better benefits. We only need to discontinue adding to the foreign reserves.
So, the more important question is, “Is our Government prepared to provide better benefits to the citizens in return for the current taxes that are now being paid?”
By the way, I have been quite happy to pay the top rate of tax on my earnings during past years. I would also have been willing to pay a higher rate of tax to give better benefits to Singaporeans, especially those in lower income groups. After earning a high income, there is still a lot remaining after paying a high rate of tax.
After paying a higher rate of tax, there is no need to discriminate between citizens on their access to the welfare and social benefits. There is no need for means-testing, which places a stigma on the lower income groups. It is better to levy higher tax and offer the same benefit to all citizens, regardless of income level. This is equality.
To Mr Tan @36 &37,
I’m glad we are in the same camp of possibly paying more tax so that Singaporeans, especially lower income folks enjoy better benefits. However, I am unfortunately, in the awkward situation of having to refute your statements about not having to raise taxes.
You said:”There is no need to raise taxes to provide better benefits. We only need to discontinue adding to the foreign reserves.”
For the benefit of our fellow readers, that is NOT TRUE. We have been incurring annual deficits for years.* In fact, we have had to dip into the interest income from our reserves to pay for special programs. The government (yes I am in a very weird position of having to defend them) has in fact proposed not just dipping into interest income but also potential capital gains to meet future deficits. So contrary to popular opinion, we have NOT been adding to our foreign reserves through our taxes.
http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/speech_toc/downloads/FY2009_Budget_Highlights.pdf
It is also not true that Singaporeans pay a high rate of tax once COE and GST are taken into account. Total Taxes (including COE, GST,motor taxes etc,) are about 15% of GDP. Our comparison countries: Denmark- 50%. of GDP; Switzerland- 30% of GDP.
Our current tax structure supports our current benefits level. If we want more benefits, we will have to increase tax revenue. Unless Singapore goes through a massive boom, such an increase can only be fueled by tax rate increases.
I hope our fellow readers share with the goal of increasing benefits but it is a fallacy that such improvements will come at no cost.
*2007 was a unique year. Because of the booming economy, the tax revenue actually collected was far in excess what they expected. The proposed budget was actually in deficit
laws must be fair to employers & employees alike. for it to tilt in favor of either is a bias.
the current bias towards the employer could be the cause of:
1) delayed marriages, due to the rising cost of living like getting a roof over the heads.
2) lower birthrates, due to lack of financial stability.
3) lower productivity, due to work related stress, unhappiness, etc…
4 more job hopping, due to stagnant pay or minimal annual wage increments.
if salaries for the majority of lower income & lower-middle income individuals are adequate, our government can actually cite personal financial prudence for not giving too much welfare in the form of social safety nets.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
another issue in the light of current economy, is that maybe our govt should consider reimbursing men who (are currently retrenched, out of job) are serving their annual in-camp-training an amount more akin to a minimal salary based on the number of days required of them, as they may have a family to worry about. this group deserve more financial support.
36) Tan Kin Lian —— “However, if you ask “are yo willing to pay more tax, so that you can get an old age pension, unemployment benefit, cheaper transport, cheaper health care and other services”, the answer is likely to be “yes” – for the majority….The state is likely to be able to provide these benefits at lower cost and greater efficiency, ”
Not quite sure about the old pension part. There are already people who can’t wait that long — they have been complaining about the lock-up period of their CPF.
Also have doubts about the part about reducing cost through consolidation. I don’t agree that state ownership necessarily lead to better efficiency. Mix successes can be easily seen worldwide. And there is already a blend of privatisation and state-ownership in Singapore (also with mix successes), so the question is how exactly to do a better job, not just a mere conversion to public ownership. The politicians of course play a role, but to a considerable extent, the quality and efficiency of the operation depends on the companies (in the case of privatised entities) or the civil servants.
I can understand why you think it’s hard to improve quality of life for the lowest income group without more social welfare, but to make such promises to draw more financial support for them is a very dangerous thing….
Hi Righteous (#38)
Can you adjust your figures of the 15% of GDP to include the amount raised from the sale of land and from development charges and property taxes that are related to land.
You will need to look into the accounts for a few years, as this item does fluctuate significantly from one year to the next.
In recent years, the Government may have to dip into the reserves and to use the investment income. This is especially the case for this year, due to the Global Crisis.
How about looking at the years before that? I recall that for most years, the Government surplus was around 5 billion a year. This surplus can be used to increase welfare, without increasing taxes.
But, it is all right to pay more taxes … if the people get more social benefit in return.
Hi Ken (#41)
We can have another debate on the merits of state and private management of pension funds, health, education and social service. As this article is on “job satisfaction”, I do not wish to expand on this area. Let me write another article for TOC on this matter.
To Mr Tan @42
I have gone back to 2003 to get the capital receipts (which includes land sales) and adjusted the numbers. I have not been able to find data for earlier years so if anyone knows it, please shoot
In any case, capital receipts account for an additional 3% of GDP. Taking out 2007, the number is more like 2.5%. This makes Singapore’s true Tax Rev as a % of GDP more like 18% vs the 15% I mentioned. This is still quite not the 30% of Switzerland and 50% of Denmark.
However, your point is taken. Even taking into the unpredictable nature of land sales, there is about 2 Billion+ that is not accounted for in the budget.. If this money is indeed being used to add to the reserves then we could use some of it to fund programs.
Let me caution certain readers about salivating over the full amount received from capital receipts. The money received fluctuates very wildly with the economy and intrinsically depends on Singapore’s prosperity. (Land sales are attractive only when developers think it’s economically worthwhile to build something).
As I have mentioned repeatedly, I am not against further funding provided the cash flow is there to sustain it.
#42 Mr Tan:
“Can you adjust your figures of the 15% of GDP to include the amount raised from the sale of land and from development charges and property taxes that are related to land.”
But even if very generous adjustments, it is hard to establish that the low-income families are short-changed. Personal income tax and GST in total for the whole population take up less than 20% of the total fiscal revenue.
I’m not trying to say that low-income contribute less taxes so they deserve less social support. Rather, my point is that Singapore is very conservative when it comes to social welfare, and also very prudence when it comes to accumulating reserves (this just shows how cautious the govt is about the future.)
The case for a welfare state system cannot be based on the principle of “upholding justice for exploited peasants”. It has to be brought about by:
(a) the willingness of the all people, especially anyone who pays taxes, to support the heavy tax regime, which will give more welfare to the lower class as part of the process
(b) the feasibility of implementing it. Massive financial resources and state management alone cannot be used to justify its feasibility (so I share many of the concerns of RighteousSinga.) It is not difficult to find examples of abuse, wastage, and inefficiency in welfare states elsewhere.
Once people have paid upfront for the long-term promises, it becomes an economic and political commitment for future generations to bear. So as much as I share your concern to assist the low-income class, I urge everyone to give a throughout study, rather than relying on the heart alone.
In the short-run, why not examine the criteria of current welfare programmes, and see how better to utilise it. I don’t see many articles about this.
Hi Righteous (#44, #45)
There are two additional points that I have left out earlier:
a) A significant portion of the GDP of Singapore comprise of the MNC sector. They pay little tax but are included in the GDP. As the GDP is inflated on this account, the actual tax to GDP is under-stated.
b) There is a lot of surplus accumulated under the government agencies, including the companies that are largely owned by the government. These surplus can be considered as another form of indirect taxation. These agencies are able to earn high surplus in near monopolistic situations (e.g. JTC, PSA, Changi Airport).
But I take your point that taxes have to be increased, if more social benefits are to be provided. I believe that the people will be willing to pay more tax, if they get value in the social benefits that they receive.
#47 Tan Kin Lian: These surplus can be considered as another form of indirect taxation. These agencies are able to earn high surplus in near monopolistic situations (e.g. JTC, PSA, Changi Airport
i won’t consider it indirect taxation — if they were to be owned privately, the taxes will fall under corporate tax.
in fact, this is how singapore’s “capitalist socialist system” works: such profitable companies which arise from central planning are kept under state ownership (directly or as a GIC) so that revenues and control don’t flow out.
Thanks Mr Tan (#47). I’ve learnt a few things I didn’t know before reading this column.
I would be interested to find out whether you think current policy of importing “foreign talent”, both highly and lowly skilled people is suitable for us. Are we un-sustainably trying to drive up growth and GDP while risking social friction and the marginalization of our own citizens? Or is this something that Singapore has no choice but to proceed with?
What then are the solutions?
This will probably be best articulated in another article rather than in the comments box.
Even big economy countries in Europe have job security for EU only. FT are only accepted if post is left empty for at least 6 mths. why I know? cos I lived and studied in UK for 9 yrs.
Hi Righteous Singa #49
I intend to write another article about creating jobs for people. I will cover foreign workers in that article. It may take another 1 or 2 weeks. Thanks for the contribution to the discussion.
You can also send an email to me at kinlian@gmail.com. We can discuss other matters privately.
Hi twinkeytot (#50)
Thanks for your contribution. I have suspected that many countries do protect their citizens better than we do in Singapore – and your comments seems to confirm that.
By allowing foreign workers to come into Singapore freely, we are depressing the wages at the lower end (and make it difficult for them to make ends meet, unless they work long hours). This is the point of my article. It is also a main reason for the high job dissatisfaction.
I hope that our Government leaders take note of the discontent from the ground. It is expressed in the survey that is used for my article.