Tan Kin Lian / Columnist
For many decades, the Singapore Government has adopted a policy of a “no welfare state”. They have extolled on the population the risk of a welfare mentality – people get lazy and expect a good life without putting in the effort.
Most of the population accepted the merits of this policy, especially during the years when the economic growth was good and jobs were plentiful.
The global financial crisis and severe economic downturn had resulted in a severe loss of employment in many countries, including Singapore. For the first time, many Singaporeans realise that it is now possible to be jobless, even if one is well educated and skilled, willing to work hard and even to accept lower pay.
Should Singapore now re-consider this “no welfare state” policy? Should some form of unemployment benefit be introduced, for people who are retrenched for no fault of their own? Should an old age pension be provided?
Survey
I responded to a request by several people to carry out a survey. 50 people responded to the survey. The breakdown by age group is:
|
Less than 30 |
28% |
|
31 to 50 |
50% |
|
Over 50 |
22% |
There is a good representation of people in the various age groups in this survey. The detailed results can be found here.
Social benefits
The respondents were told that social benefits have to be paid by taxation. With this understanding, 86% said that they prefer the state to provide for the basic social benefits, such as education, health, safety. 8% prefer the state to provide these benefits at a generous level (and to levy higher taxes to pay for them). 6% prefer the state to provide as little as possible.
Types of social benefits
The respondents indicated the following level of support for each social benefit.
A score of 30% indicates that the benefit should be provided at the bare minimum, 60% indicate that it should be provided at a basic level for everyone and a score of 90% indicate that it should be provided at a generous level.
|
Education (up to secondary level) |
78% |
|
Health care |
73% |
|
Infrastructure |
72% |
|
Safety |
72% |
|
Law and order |
72% |
These above social benefits receive the highest scores. Most respondents indicate that they should be provided to every one. Some preferred them to be provided at a more generous level.
|
Consumer protection |
66% |
|
Economic strategy |
61% |
|
University education |
61% |
|
Old age pension |
57% |
The above social benefits receive a moderate level of support. The need for consumer protection (against bad practices by businesses) receives a fairly high score.
|
Insurance (death, disability, sickness) |
49% |
|
Unemployment benefit |
46% |
|
Investment fund |
39% |
|
Religion |
23% |
The above social benefits receive a lower level of support, but (apart from religion) are at a sufficiently high level to be considered.
Percentage of GDP
The respondents prefer an average of 29% of GDP to be spent by the government to provide the social benefits and other activities of the state. This is higher than the current level of 20% but is lower than 35% for many European countries and 50% for the high welfare countries (such as Denmark).
50% prefer the state to spend more on necessary social benefits (and to levy higher taxes to pay for them). 38% say that the current state spending and taxation is fine. 12% prefer the spending and taxation to be reduced.
60% say that they are willing to pay higher taxes to enjoy better welfare and social benefits (which will benefit the people at large. 40% disagree.
A larger majority, i.e. 76%, said that the state can afford to provide better social benefits with the current level of taxation, i.e. instead of accumulating surpluses in the reserves. 24% said that the state is already provided as much as can be afforded.
69% said that the spending on certain areas, such as defense, is too high and some of the budget can be diverted to provide social benefits. 31% disagreed.
Respondents’ views
Here are some additional views put forward by the respondents:
a) Reduce the salary of ministers and top civil servants. No other countries pay more than Singapore. The money saved can be used for health and education subsidies.
b) Spending on defense has been very high despite the fact that the ASEAN countries have reached a high level of international relations and cooperation. Instead of spending on defense, the spending should be on diverted to improve bilateral relations through joint-venture projects.
c) We want change and for our society to be better and united. Citizens should not have to fear for their livelihood and should feel more secure when there is social welfare net to fall back on.
My observations
Here are my observations from the survey:
a) There is strong support for a higher level of state spending to improve social benefits and provide better security for the people. The existing spending on education, health care and infrastructure is well supported. The respondents also like to see higher spending on consumer protection, unemployment benefit, old age pension and university education.
b) Many people are willing to pay higher taxes to enjoy better social benefits.
c) The current level of taxation can support a higher level of social benefits by reducing the annual surplus that is put into reserves and by reducing the high expenditure in certain areas, such as defense.
Perhaps it is time for the Government to re-think its policy of “no welfare state”. Welfare can provide greater security for the people against events that are outside of their control. There is a risk of abuse of welfare benefits, but the abuse can be managed and reduced.
Many countries have addressed these challenges and found some solutions that are practical and useful. They are not perfect, but they do more good than harm. It is time for Singapore to adopt an open approach.
—-
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
Hi Peter Sellers (#45)
Thank you for your story of the pork seller. I have a similar story of an electrican who turns taxi driver.
The policy of outsourcing and allowing many foreign workers to come into Singapore is causing great harm to the people of Singapore and also to the foreign workers (who have to pay nearly one year of salary to the recruitment agencies).
It is time for the government to reflect on what went wrong, and stop the damage.
#50 mice is nice
I have no resentment towards the younger generation.
We all have to walk the path, feel that way
It’s a phase one need to go through in life
I just want to offer a balanced view to all the garmen bashing in this site
I do not think is is healthy at all
Just like how you viewed my posts as resentment, you have made your conclusion although you have no information about my age, background, in fact you do not know me at all, just like I do not know you.
Do you know the pple commenting on this site?
Most will it when they sing their tune, but not when they don’t
How is that going to help one have a balanced and rational view of anything?
For all you know, there are many older folks here than us disguising as young ones, and I may be younger than you think, and Mr Spock could be gay.
Behind the safety veil of being anonymous, pple will write anything.
Groupthink and the madness of crowds are human behaviours that had been well researched. You may want to read up some of it.
Hi Peter Sellers (#45)
Ya, it is painful and sad.
I also noticed almost all the Kopitiam service staff has gone foreign. And some hawkers are too.
A little silver lining I observed during my recent visit to the hospital. A few years ago, most of the nurses are foreigners. I am glad ot observe that in this episode, all the nurses attending to the patient I know are locals.
Apparent the health sector did manage to convince a lot of our girls to take to this line of profession.
However I d notice a some foreign doctors, which is something we do not see previously.
45) mice is nice
It will be prudent to take up medical (hospitalisation) insurance like enhanced medishield on your own to make your medical coverage “portable” and not depend on company’s health insurance alone. So when your boss kicks you out, you are still covered. That is one way to reduce the finainacial burden and worry of the ever escalating health cost.
Like a mountain climber, we need to anchor more than one lifeline.
My 2 cents worth of though.
hi Tan Kin Lian,
financial security (to me) means earning enough for rainy days & retirement. job losses due to retrenchment should be borne by employers who weild the axe, to suggest a form of insurance sends a message to employers that they no longer hold any social responsibility for retrenching staff.
please do not confuse financial security with unemployment insurance, because currently SPUR or similiar job conversion programs. despite some getting jobs not all who does can make enough to sustain themselves till pass retirement, much less sustain a family. then a situation where job security does not equate to financial security, can this be right?
my 3 points are not about welfare, welfare is not the way forword, but fair employment practise with a healthy work-life-balance is. & this 2 are very different by definition, not just in words.
if you are championing some form of welfare for retrenched workers, then yes, welfare for this target group should be looked into. but prudence sake the root of the issue that leads to such retrenchments will have to be dealt with 1st. is companies too hasty in retrenching workers? have companies tried other ways to cut costs? how much effort went into looking for alternative costcutting solutions?
it retrenchment benefits is given too freely companies will not be incentivised to innovate to improve their business model. should companies benefit indirectly, just like some are with JCS for staving off retrenchments & SPUR for retrenched workers. why should workers be unfairly penalised for things they have little control over?
“Too many Singaporeans typically get themselves up to their ears in depth upon graduation with car loans, study loans, wedding loans, housing loans, and whathaveyou.”
Good observation. Since how many years ago have you yourself graduated for you to reach such wisdom.
“With your wealth of knowledge in the field of investments, your comments are well balanced. (i wish I could say the same of many of the high emotionally charged responses)”
needless to say, the station of life of Mr. Tan is a lot different from lesser mortals who cannot control their emotions. funny leh.
re KopitiamApek,
i do not need to know you that much, your post speaks for itself.
“groupthink & madness of crowds…”?
there are millions of people, surely few hold views so unique? besides, that is not the point. some points you brought up are quite off topic leh.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
i know more premium insurance plans that offer a better health coverage. got money i will get the best of the best insurance, till then let me work on it…
if my boss kicks me out too bad for me, S’pore labour is such. suck thumb loh…
#58
I can see you do not share my view. I do respect that.
On insurance, It does not cost too much to get the insurance, please do not wait till you have the money, buying it early will save you the astronomical sum you may burnt with one serious episode of hospitalisation.
The irony is that we buy car insurance because it is mandatory, and we do not insure our own health because it is not. And it actually cost less than car insurance.
#57
I can see you do not share my view. I respect that.
#22 curious
It is hard for us to ascertain if this levy or that levy is enough to pay for whatever wishlist of free handouts we want from gahmen.
I guess gahmen must strike a balance between taxation and expenditure.
So for each wishlist granted, some one else pays something more.
#56
The Employment Act stipulates that if you have worked more than 3 years, you will be entitled retrenhment benefit.
28) Tan Kin Lian
Ya . The foreign worker thingy is sometimes getting overboard. There is only one local cleaner where I live, a nice old lady. Everybody else is non sg.
The drivers of the trucks carrying foreign workers are now also foreign workers.
Waste of resource indeed if we turn ourselves into a nation of taxi drivers.
I sidetrack a bit, (at the risk of being “off topic” again.)
I was told that some taxi drivers uses their taxi more for private tpt, as they reckon after some punchiing their calculators, that it is cheaper than owning a car. That may be the reason why we never gaet a cab when we need one.
re KopitiamApek,
i dun have any wheels, to finance. for luxury items that i can live without, i prefer the cash up front option. saving up & paying in full beats paying a monthly installment anytime.
on retrenchment benefit, i think in the face of shorter economic cycles, 3 years is too long, it should be 1 year. as 1 year is still time, some laws need to update liao…?
“I guess gahmen must strike a balance between taxation and expenditure.
So for each wishlist granted, some one else pays something more.”
balance here and balance there. high reserve right (down now to be in tune with global standard) ? even if we do not have any wish list, we still need to pay for their highly-talented pay (and that is not global standard but a uniquely local standard).
going further into the “welfare”, specifically retrenchment, the survey is a reflection of the current economic situation. therefore it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
to support such a scheme through taxation which is constant, itself is a heavy burden on taxpayers because retrenchment is never constant & ongoing.
why should companies earn all the profit in good times, & taxpayers bare the costs of falling profits?
“privatise profits, socialise loses?”
#64
on retrenchment benefit, i think in the face of shorter economic cycles, 3 years is too long, it should be 1 year. as 1 year is still time, some laws need to update liao…?”
You got a point there, 3 years is too long in present day context.
#66 mice is nice
if retrenchment benefits is by gahmen, it may lead to irresponsible retrenchment by employers, as it now cost them nothing. And more chance for people on this site here to “cow pay”
On the flip side, demanding too high a mandatory retrenchment benefit by law to be paid by employers, the employees end up paying for it as employers will have to factor these requirements into the overall wage cost.
Life is full og hard choices.
#64
Ya . paying upfront on lux item is wise indeed.
Do not live on credit
#65
you found some universal answers to challenge all my questions
1. high minister pay
2. big loss by gahmen in investment
3. lesser mortal syndrome
you may be comforted to know that many posts here share your line of thinking
“you found some universal answers to challenge all my questions
1. high minister pay
2. big loss by gahmen in investment
3. lesser mortal syndrome
you may be comforted to know that many posts here share your line of thinking.”
Isolating all the ‘right’ correlative effects (which may well be causative) and give it a possible spin. Didn’t we learn it from somewhere else or has is become standard fare nowsadays that even kopitiam apeks have come to know the trick and even the self-annointed elites cannot claim to possess (monopolize) such common ‘line of thinking’ anymore.
#50
mice is nice
a large part of your post borders on rants.”
Thank you for your feedback.
One always need to be extra careful with the wriiten word.
As opposed to speaking in person, whereby the tone of one’s voice and body language convey the message in totality, when we write, the words, and only words carry the entire message, and as such, we need to be very careful with the words used.
It is always good to hear what others read our message as, and I appreciate your feedback.
In these posts “it’s only words, and words are all I have , to take your heart away” to quote the BeeGees
“In these posts “it’s only words, and words are all I have , to take your heart away” to quote the BeeGees.”
With a side twist, maybe Andy (their younger brother) incidentally fell for it – he died from some heart inflammation. Any more quotes ?
“One always need to be extra careful with the wriiten word.”
Wow, such high standard. Not happy ?, just clarify until you are happy. Internet space is unlimited unlike the limited space for MSM, reason (excuse ?) given for not being able to publish all comments. Anonymity somemore unless busy body kaypohs want to find out, so ego & identity are protected even though you may be famous but your weak views get slaughtered here. Who needs to know your voice and body language. Only the content will do even if it is raw.
#73
thank you for your respond, abiet quite emotive
I was refering to myself when I wrote “One always need to be extra careful with the wriiten word.”
another quote ” you say it best when you say nothing at all “- forgot the singer
#73
I repeat what I wrote.
“And when they read what I write, which is no music to their ears, they go hamtam me. : )
Observe.
So interesting bunch of people”
60) KopitiamApek on May 28th, 2009 4.23 pm
//#22 curious It is hard for us to ascertain if this levy or that levy is enough to pay for whatever wishlist of free handouts we want from gahmen.//
That is obvious if one does not know the number of poor, elderly disabled. One of the MPs estimated that number to be about 15,000. At $1000 a mth the total per year is $180 mil which is peanuts compared to the horrendous amounts of taxes taken from the people.
//I guess gahmen must strike a balance between taxation and expenditure.
So for each wishlist granted, some one else pays something more.//
Or the gahmen spend less but I see you have no objection to such a scheme for these unfortunate folks.
#76
Agree
I have no objection to such a scheme for these unfortunate folks.
But my point is we mere mortals (as someone so interestingly put it) are not at liberty to such info as to what tax is collected to pay what, maybe gajmen all lump together , I am clueless.
So when we start suggesting to use this so&so tax to pay that so&so scheme, we give gahmen ammunition for their reply.
Tax is all liquidated and fluid and can be used cross functionally.
76) KopitiamApek on May 28th, 2009 9.37 pm
//Agree, I have no objection to such a scheme for these unfortunate folks.//
Good. At least we are in concert here with Tan Kin Lian.
//But my point is we mere mortals (as someone so interestingly put it) are not at liberty to such info as to what tax is collected to pay what, maybe gajmen all lump together , I am clueless.//
From today onwards you need not be clueless if you care to take a few minutes to look at the 2008 budget and examine the Revenues Estimates at the SUMMARY TABLES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES for 2008 at the link here:
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2008/revenue_expenditure/toc.html
Here you will see the following estimates for 2008 revenues :
In Million of Dollars
1 Motor Vehicle excise duty $511
2 Vehicle ARF $1133
3 Road Tax $732
4Tax on heavy oil engines $120
5 GST $6190
6Betting tax $1800
7Betting & Sweepstakes duties $1437
8Private lottery duty $363
9 Tobacco excise duty $655
10Liquor excise duty $430
The maids’ and workers levies are hidden somewhere and are not stated.
//So when we start suggesting to use this so&so tax to pay that so&so scheme, we give gahmen ammunition for their reply.//
But you can see that taking $180 million from the above billions to help the poor disabled elderly is just only a small fraction of the stated taxes and duties.
//Tax is all liquidated and fluid and can be used cross functionally.//
That is true as tax money is allocated for expenditures but somebody ought to point the gahmen’s attention to the plight of the poor disabled elderly in Spore.
We have a First World economy with the second highest per capita reserves next only to Brunei. We can afford to help the poor disabled elderly if we have the political will.
There will be no abuse as all the cases are verifiable : Disabled folks 60 to 65 and over, with an immediate household income of $2000 and below.
hi KopitiamApek,
nice to know you share my view 3 year qualifiying period for retrenchment benefit is really too long in today’s reality.
////…. demanding too high a mandatory retrenchment benefit by law to be paid by employers, the employees end up paying for it as employers will have to factor these requirements into the overall wage cost.
Life is full of hard choices.////
hmmm, tough question. lets just say that most businesses do factor in all the costs of doing business, not that all businesses are equally competent but it pays to do their sums right. on their part, even without mandatory retrenchment benefit, there are other overheads to look into. on the other hand, do govts (not just S’pore?) go all out to unfairly penalise companies? let those in power decide where the “fair” balance should be.
there is a cost to everything, there must be a reason not to do so to save cost.
the tainted milk scandal & lead paint (regarding toys) scandal both from China are blatant disregard with far reaching (if not costly) implications to justify “current” cost savings.
hard choices? depends on who is making them. maybe in in line my thoughts, it should be retrenchment rights, not benefits.
why full-time jobs should pay salaries (with prudent spending, that itself very subjective) enough for,
1) sudden major illness
2) setting up & maintaining a family with (2 kids & 2 retired parents) 2 parents drawing full salaries
3) to live financially independant after retirement.
4) keeping the roof securely over their heads.
i have a question, “do we live to work or work to live?”. it has nothing to do with working past retirement if some wish, but the choice must be there so the retired can choose.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
the only form of welfare i will support at current is a higher fixed handout for the currently aged poor who have contributed much to our early years of success, for which the march of progress the current younger generation is living, & they were overlooked. we owe it to these group, very much indeed.
While I agree that most of the survey takers indicate that they are willing to pay more taxes for more welfare, I have serious concerns in 2 aspects:
1. The expectations are way too high. They expect too much welfare for what they are willing to pay.
2. The expectations is hard to be implemented. It is not only a matter of money, but also how it can be implemented efficiently. (Even if we were to make the MP work for free, their total salary is not even enough to finance a tiny part of this year’s stimulus package.)
I think the lower economic strata of the society desires more help (possibly with more taxation), but I don’t see it feasible to arrive to the extent of a welfare state policy.
77) Curious
thanks for the great insight and “unblurring” me.
didn’t know these info are in public domain.
ty
78) mice is nice – the only form of welfare i will support at current is a higher fixed handout for aged poor who have contributed much to our early years of success, ”
very wise words. much of our reserves are from their sacrifice of a lifetime of toil, sweat and tears.
I weeped in my heart when I saw a frail hunched old lady (probably above 70) at 1 am in Chinatown struggling with cardboard collection that she could hardly have strength to lift, while I eat my midnight snack in aircon comfort. That scene had been implanted in my brain.
Agree. We gotta help these pple. This is no way to treat our pioneers who toiled so that I have my supper in aircon comfort.
79) & 80 umbra
your points are very valid.
we do not want it to be a free for all , resulting in a buffet syndrome
then those who need it most get sidelined again.
#77 curious
We have a First World economy with the second highest per capita reserves next only to Brunei. We can afford to help the poor disabled elderly if we have the political will. ”
beautifully said.
the ERP was pushed through because of sg gahmen’s political will. that’s why few country in the world could get the road pricing thru because the political cost is too high(btw, I support that, it is demand control, painful but need to have)
Ya, gahmen can do likewise with helping the poor disabled elderly. This one no political cost at all. So do it.
For all the amahs and ah kongs and apeks (this kopitiamApek no need)
Umbra #79 and 80, I tend to agree with you.
That’s why I prefer market based solutions, such as curbing immigration and restricting the supply of workers, especially at the bottom.
hi Peter Sellers,
i’m with you on “curbing immigration and restricting the supply of workers, especially at the bottom”.
81) KopitiamApek on May 29th, 2009 11.37 am
//thanks for the great insight and “unblurring” me. didn’t know these info are in public domain. ty//
No problems. You can also access the Singapore Constitution and Singapore statutes online by doing a Yahoo or Google search for which one you want.
83) KopitiamApek on May 29th, 2009 11.51 am
//We have a First World economy with the second highest per capita reserves next only to Brunei. We can afford to help the poor disabled elderly if we have the political will. ” beautifully said.//
Thank you. Lets hope the gahmen will see their plight soon and help them.
//the ERP was pushed through because of sg gahmen’s political will.//
I support it too but only for office hours otherwise it will just more tax collection.
//Ya, gahmen can do likewise with helping the poor disabled elderly. This one no political cost at all. So do it. For all the amahs and ah kongs and apeks //
IMO, for only those who are disabled and whose immediate family income is $2000 and below. Not carte blanche.
//(this kopitiamApek no need)//
You are lucky to have saved more than enough for your retirement. But why not drink at Starbuck if you can afford it?
86) Curious
You can also access the Singapore statutes online at agc@gov.sg
I think if congestion goes beyond office hours, it has to be there too. Let take the assumption that the ERP collected is really ploughed back into new train lines, then it is well and fine.
Not carte blanche. Definitely. Totally 100% in agreement with you on that. Singaporean are experts at attacking buffet spreads !
I do not like angmo kopi like Starbuck lah, but I love all the reincarnations of traditional kopitiams like Killiney, Ya Kun, ToastBox, Ah Mei, Wang,
Wah, after writing too much about kopi, now my caffiane withdrawal symtoms starting liao, fingers shaking liao, must rush to kopitiam………
87) KopitiamApek on May 29th, 2009 3.59 pm
//You can also access the Singapore statutes online at agc@gov.sg//
Try this : http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html
//I think if congestion goes beyond office hours, it has to be there too. Let take the assumption that the ERP collected is really ploughed back into new train lines, then it is well and fine.//
But not counting the ERP (every road pay) collection, the taxes collected from motor vehicles are already a stunning $2.5 BILLION a year. This amount is taken from civil society and it is poorer when the entrepreneurs can start business and benefit the economy. Govt only spend the money it gets or lose money it invests in US banks.
Also not to forget the NEL line is a private line owned by Delgro and SMRT the others.
//Singaporean are experts at attacking buffet spreads !//
Yup. There is a joke that you can spot them when they are overseas. The Hongkies have the tallest houses in Vancouver but the Singaporeans have the tallest buffet on their plates, never mind if they can finish it or not.
//Wah, after writing too much about kopi, now my caffiane withdrawal symtoms starting liao, fingers shaking liao, must rush to kopitiam………//
That is called an acute caffeine addiction. Not me, I like a glass of Chardonnay to chill out.
88) Curious
I am now on caffeine drip while I type
“Also not to forget the NEL line is a private line owned by Delgro and SMRT the others.”
Actually SMRT and Comfort Delgro are the operators, they do not own the system. Although it is privately operated, the infrastructure is state owned. The gahmen bulids it, handover the system for them to operate as a commercially viable biz.. The operators do not have to foot the bill of the infrastructure, otherwise the train fares will be astronomical. But I understand that they will foot the long term cost of train replacement which is not cheap, a train cost more than $10m SGD.
But you pointed out correctly, taxes collected from motor vehicles are already a stunning $2.5 BILLION is enough to built one new line each year, but we get one new line every 5-10 years.
So the loose change can be used to help those ah kongs and ah mahs
by the way, the EMAS system on our expressways really stand for Extra Money Anyhow Spent
89) KopitiamApek on May 29th, 2009 6.04 pm
//I am now on caffeine drip while I type//
Make sure you are not on steroids like Arnold, the Governor of California.
//Actually SMRT and Comfort Delgro are the operators, they do not own the system. Although it is privately operated, the infrastructure is state owned.//
I didn’t know that. But why give the concession to SMRT and Comfort Delgro only?
//But you pointed out correctly, taxes collected from motor vehicles are already a stunning $2.5 BILLION is enough to built one new line each year, but we get one new line every 5-10 years.
This is the modern version of Charles Dickens book called “The Highway Robbery”
//So the loose change can be used to help those ah kongs and ah mahs//
I don’t think they will bother as “Out of sight is out of mind” as the old saying goes.
90) KopitiamApek on May 29th, 2009 6.06 pm
//by the way, the EMAS system on our expressways really stand for Extra Money Anyhow Spent//
And the old PWD was short for “Purposely Want to Dig and COE in Hokkien means “Cee pun Or Ee.” That’s life in the former “Clown” colony.
91) Curious
I understand under the new whatever-they-call-it tpt plan , the market will be thrown open to players other than SMRT and Comfort Delgro.
Not unlike SwissPort kena or-bak- kak while competing with SATS and CIAS (CIAS=come in and suffer)
92) KopitiamApek on May 29th, 2009 8.44 pm
//I understand under the new whatever-they-call-it tpt plan , the market will be thrown open to players other than SMRT and Comfort Delgro.//
Public tender is always the best. Comfort Delgro is already a heavyweight in the Taxi business, with more than 16,000 taxis in the stable when the total in Spore is about 24,000.
//Not unlike SwissPort kena or-bak- kak while competing with SATS and CIAS (CIAS=come in and suffer)//
Singapore Changi Airport is one of the best airports in the world and Sats = Sudden Attention To Service.
A good source of welfare is to provide jobs. So far, the Government has depended on profit-oriented business to create jobs. This should not be the only source of employment.
The Government can make it easy for people to run a small business. A good example is to run local transport. They can make it easy for anyone with a car to run a local taxi service to operate only within a town. In Indonsia, it is called Angottan Kota, which is town transport.
The requirement for a local taxi is simplier than a full taxi licence. The operator of a local taxi does not keed to know all the roads in Singapore – they only need to know the roads in the town.
People who are of my generation (i.e. 60 years or older) knows of the old days of “pirate taxis” that provide a low cost, excellent, economical local taxi service to residents and creates a lot of local employment.
The Government can also make it easy for tradesmen, e.g. repairmen, to do local services without having to incur a lot of expenses, such as registering a business, opening a shop, etc.
I will be writing an article on creating “economic recovery jobs”. Every person, willing to work, should be allowed to work at a minimum wage on a job that adds value to the community. These jobs are funded by the public sector and should continue for the time being, until the free market is able to generate demand for higher paying jobs.
The “economic recovery jobs” are better than the SPUR training program or the Job Credit Scheme (aka wage subsidy for employers).
President Barack Obama has adopted this approach of creating jobs, rather than SPUR or JCS. I think that his advisers are more in tune with the economic realities.
94) Tan Kin Lian
///The Government can make it easy for people to run a small business///
Yes. The existing myraid of rules can be further reviewed to reduce the kill rate of entrepreunership at inception. The more recent focus on SME by gahmen, as opposed to MNC in the past decades is a small sign, we do see more local brands doing quite succesfully in recent years. But it need to trickle further down to a level that more SME can feel its impact. To a lot of SME at present, its only words.
Hi (95) Tan Kin Lian,
“I will be writing an article on creating “economic recovery jobs”. …..The “economic recovery jobs” are better than the SPUR training program or the Job Credit Scheme (aka wage subsidy for employers).”
Looking forward to read that.
I just read the “The TOP 30 highest paid politicians in the world are all from Singapore” at http://www.yeocheowtong.com/Salaries.html and was really shocked as I didn’t expect the ministers’ salaries to be that high (assuming the figures are correct).
1. Elected President SR Nathan – S$3.9 million.
2. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – S$3.8 million.
3. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew – S$3.5 million.
4. Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong – S$3.5 million.
5. Senior Minister Prof Jayakumar – S$3.2 million.
6. DPM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng – S$2.9 million.
7. DPM & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean – $2.9 million
8. Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo – S$2.8 million.
9. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan – S$2.7 million.
10. PMO Miniser Lim Boon Heng – S$2.7 million.
11. Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang – S$2.7 million.
12. PMO Minister Lim Swee Say – S$2.6 million.
13. Environment Minister & Muslim Affairs Minister Dr Yaccob Ibrahim – S$2.6 million.
14. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan – S$2.6 million.
15. Finance Minister S Tharman – S$2.6 million.
16. Education Minister & 2nd Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen – S$2.6 million.
17. Community Development Youth and Sports Minister – Dr Vivian Balakrishnan – S$2.5 million.
18. Transport Minister & 2nd Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim Siang Kiat – S$2.5 million.
19. Law Minister & 2nd Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam – S$2.4 million.
20. Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong – S$2.2 million.
21. PMO Minister Lim Hwee Hwa – S$2.2 million.
22. Acting ICA Minister – Lui Tuck Yew – S$2.0 million.
23 to 30 = Senior Ministers of State and Ministers of State – each getting between S$1.8 million to S$1.5 million.
Note: 1. The above pay does not include MP allowances, pensions and other sources of income such as Directorship, Chairmnship, Advisory, Consultancy, etc to Gov-linked and gov-related organisations or foreign MNCs such as Citigroup (for Lee Kuan Yew), etc.
With such high salaries, how can Singapore afford to have much enough reserve left for welfare of her people?
I like to have your view on the President’s salary. Do you think our President deserves that kind of salary?
Welfarism is NOT bad, it is the abuse of welfarism that is bad. If we want to be seen as a gracious people, then looking after the marginalised, the deprived and the aged sick, is our responsibility. All the more, the elected government of the day must take the ownership to act. The success of a nation is not measured by the number of billionaires but by how the poor and destitutes in our society are being treated.
Unemployment insurance need not cost the government anything. In that bastion of capitalism, the U S of A, there are medisave-like schemes where the employed pay a small portion of their income into a fund to be drawn on if they become unemployed. Can be easily administered by CPF.
The fact that such a scheme does not exist is merely indicative of disinterest from the people with the iron rice bowl
I must certainly thank Kin Lian for his learned articles. We both have been working with employee benefits for a long time and we know how difficult it was for the traditional chinese businesses headed by a towkay to switch from giving Ang Pows to giving bonuses under a specified scheme.
The Govt is certainly not stingy, looking at the handouts over the last few years, but they do not want to systematize it.
Like the towkays, they want to retain the power to give or not to give, and have the recipients thank them for giving.
In the same vein the Prime Minister have clearly stated that they want Ministers to have huge salaries so that they can give for charitable causes and make random acts of kindness…have the beneficiaries be beholden to them.
Nothing is given for free, or as a Right. It is given to win favour and support.
If you can craft out a Social Welfare System that look like a Membership Reward Scheme, I am sure you find a listening ear with the authorities.
Maybe you should recruit someone from American Express or United Airlines to help. I do know a few retired folks there! hah! hah!