by Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the Budget Statement 2011.
Singaporeans’ wages grew 0.44%
Although the Budget statement said:
“Consider what happened to low-income Singaporean workers, at the 20th percentile of incomes. Their wages grew by about 23% in the last decade, or by 5% in real terms”,
I see from Annex A that the real income growth was 4.5 per cent. So, the real income growth per annum over the last decade was 0.44 per cent.
Also, what is interesting is that it is based on Singaporeans’ income, a departure from almost all labour statistics which lump Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) together. Moreover, it is based only on full-time employed Singaporeans. In the past, I believe the statistics used were always on all workers, including part-time workers.
If the Budget 2011 can give the data for Singaporeans only, why is it that we have been consistently been unable to break-down the data to Singaporeans and PRs, for unemployment, jobs, etc?
Therefore, real incomes may be lower, if all Singaporean workers (full-time and part-time) are included, which I believe was the case in previous years.
Change data definition – better statistics?
In this connection, last year’s resident full-time and part-time workers’ real income increased by 1.3 and 10 per cent respectively. But these figures may look better because of the change in definition in 2009 to classify part-time workers as those working less than 35 hours a week, instead of 30 hours previously. This may make the part-timers’ income higher because those previously working more than 30 hours may boost up their overall earnings, and full-timers income may also look higher because those working less than 35 hours would no longer be in their category. In other words, the presumably bottom rung of full-timers were moved to become presumably the top rung of part-timers.
Notwithstanding the above, the combined data for all workers was perhaps more revealing, with only a real median income growth of 0.5 per cent last year.
Similarlly, the household income statistics is also perhaps unique, as it is based on “Singaporean” households, instead of the usual resident (Singaporean and PR) households.
Budget surplus or deficit?
If we include land sales which is estimated to be about $15 billion, exclude the Top-ups to Endowment and Trust Funds of $7.14 billion and the $4 billion Resilence Package returned to the reserves, does it mean that the Budget would have had a surplus of about $25.86 billion, instead of a deficit of $0.28 billion? (Note: Transfers to top-up endowment funds are not expenditure per se, as only the interest every year from endowment funds are utilised)
Upgrade! Upgrade!
“We are moving ahead with our Continuing Education and Training (CET) plans. Last year, we announced the Workfare Training Scheme (WTS) to give additional training support for older, low-wage workers. This year, we will strengthen our support for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), who in fact now make up more than half of our workforce”
The almost yearly ritual of upgrading skills to improve productivity, does not appear to have helped workers much, as recent labour statistics indicste that wages may be continuing to dcline for lower-income workers and that the more educated and older one is, the harder it may be to get a job when you are unemployed. As long as we have liberal foreign labour policies, like allowing foreign graduates to have a pass to stay in Singapore for a year to look for a job, the continuing rhethoric to upgrade may not work, from the perspective of outcomes for workers.
Workfare so little cash?
“D.15. As the economy has performed exceptionally and our revenues have been strong in 2010, I will provide a one-off Special Bonus payment for those on the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme. The Workfare Special Bonus will be given for work done in 2010, as well as for this and next year. The Bonus will amount to 50% more WIS for work done in 2010, and 25% more WIS each year for work done in 2011 and 2012. Employees will receive these bonuses fully in cash”
For a age 45 to 54 workers earning $1,200, the Workfare payout is $286 in cash and $714 to CPF. So, the extra cash that the worker can use is only about $24 a month. With this Budget’s once-off 50 per cent additional all cash Workfare payout, followed by 25 per cent in the next two years, he would only get an additional $500 a year or $42 a month this year, followed by $250 a year or about $21 a month. How substantial is this for the elderly lower-income worker?
Self-employed “lagi” less?
“Self-Employed Persons who make their Medisave contributions will also benefit. They will receive half of their bonus in cash, and the other half in their CPF Medisave accounts”
For the self-employed, it is even less, as only half of the once-off Workfare payout will be in cash. For a age 46 to 54 self employed person earning $1,200 a month, he has to contribute $408 in cash to get $333 Workfare entirely to his CPF. Now the once-off Workfare bonus payout is only 50 per cent in cash, which means that he will only get $166.50 or about $14 a month in cash this year, followed by about $7 in the next two years.
The fundamental problem of Workfare remains – Why would a already cash-strapped self-employed person contribute $408 of his precious cash to get $333 to his Medisave which he can only use if he falls sick or for medical insurance premiums, and hope for once-off special Workfare bonus partial cash payouts in future Budgets?
Not cash benefits?
The following Budget 2011 benefits are not cash that Singaporeans can use:-
- $500 millon Medisave top-ups
- $175 million Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG)
- $10 billion to upgrade homes and rejuvenate estates over the next 10 years
- $200 million U-Save and S & CC rebates (as these are to offset increased and possibly increasing costs)
You can read Part One here. Mr Leong will be speaking at this afternoon’s TOC Budget Forum 2011.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Really piss with LHL, useless pinky. Next time see him at AMK during erection, will scold him and question him.
Still so thick skin to draw million$ salary and call himself PM.
vote pap out, before singapore become a prostitute city.
pui.
Frankly, while there has been increases in direct benefits to individuals the budget did not excite me. For this is election year and goodies were expected, albeit more than in previous years which I put it down to the more vocal complaints coming in against the PAP in cyberspace. Why I am not excited is because of what is expected to follow after the budget. I am just waiting to see the increases in costs such as transport, utilities, etc that are going to come our way sooner or later after elections. Is it going to be the same story as in previous years – ” Put it one hand and take away from the other hand”.
They totally left out middle income earners
You’ve done well again Mr Leong! Truly the Ralf Nader of Singapore. I hope more people will get to read the real analysis of the Budget – the net net so called dividends given out by the Inc to the stakeholders. In reality, I can decide to sell off the shares of a company if it’s not performing but in this case, I wonder what singaporeans can do? Vote off the shares?
I hope TOC is tweeting and tweeting this to pass along any SGBUDGET tag on the tweeter world so you can reach out to more people. Good luck
On statistics – the government is a master of obfuscation. It uses data to suit its ends. For the sake of consistency, all data should relate to citizens only. After all, the government is elected to serve its citizens, not foreigners (which the PRs effectively are).
On the budget surplus – Jee Say has estimated in part 2 of his summary that the budget surplus for the five years from 2005 to 2009 amounted to $106 billion or over $21 b per year. So Sze Hian’s estimate of a surplus of about $26 b for this year is about correct. As against this, the government is doling out just $6.6 b. That is very inadequate.
In any case, the budget is a piece-meal, band-aid type prescription. What is needed is real structural reform and for the money to be put to real use to help the people.
Unfortunately the budget appears to be focused, once again, on propping up CPF. It must be in a hell of state to need all this extra cash.
The more the government give the more the government have to take back eventually, otherwise how can the cycle work? Is a rat race and if we expect more from the government than eventually the rat have to race faster to provide for more handout. So is better that the government do something so that the rat race can cool off a little bit so that the rat (we) do not have to race that fast. This is the basic of governing and if you don’t understand don’t enter politics to make the people suffer.
It seems like our bank is in real bad shape.. or else why keep pumping money into CPF.. also.. due to last time election time goodies, and take back issue.. it seems like now market is taking this angbao with fear…
Let’s see in what way the budget news benefit me.
1. 20% off my tax bill – a few $ off.
2. Refund of my TV Licence
3. Probably $100 in Growth Dividend.
That’s all. Not eligible for medifund’s
claim, still have to pay for expensive
doctor consultations, expensive root canal treatment and crowning, and most damning, expensive medications for chronic illnesses every month.
Final question – would the GST shoot up after the GE, in order to cover the so-called generous benefits to the rest of the citizens? Stretch out one hand and withdraw the other hand?
Remember what MM Lee said decades ago-
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Rejoice before GE, would cry again after GE.
I am actually quite terrified what they would take back after this round of carrots. The more given, the more payment later.
just to refresh you abit here, our average total yearly combined revenues collected by the garment as of last year is close to S$30billions… you guys go and figure out where the $$$ goes to.
Thanks for your analysis Sze Hian. After reading the budget speech, your analysis and Kenneth J’s review of last year’s budget, I am really surprised at the lack of any real thinking of the issues at hand especially given that it’s an election year.
Well, you may want to practice your voting skills at ST’s online poll on your reaction to the budget – at least they’ll have to print that! http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_636332.html
and S’pore raises 2011 defence budget by 5.4% – Channel NewsAsia
Sounds like what ex. georgie bush did in state during his time. Did they share the same idea on how to move billions of state fund?
The Highest Defence budget in the world, and then idiots in Foreign Ministry belittles the region, the giant neighbours. No wonder.
Wages have not been incrementing to match inflation.
Public Healthcare have not increased in it’s subsidies or undergo any review in it’s policies to match the cost of today.
There should be transparency on the traffic of where the money is flowing from the revenues of all government agencies and where it is collecting dust
Real income growth for 20th-percentile is 0.44%pa — Leong Sze Hian.
Actually the real REAL income growth for the lower-income is Negative.
This is becoz PAP uses the median CPI as inflation. The govt actually tracks 3 different types of CPI: for lower-income, middle-income and higher-income. The lower-income CPI has been always higher than the others, becoz of stagnant wages but continuous increase in prices for basic necessities like food, electricity, public transport, medical, housing/rental, education.
However, PAP only use the middle-income CPI for all its computation. So this makes the income growth for lower-income better than it actually is, while at the same time makes the income growth for the rich worse than it actually is. (middle-income CPI is higher than high-income CPI)
i have a few observations to make, i apologize that the first one is slightly out of topic,
1. please stop this irritating “this-is-home” campaign which features Kit Chan, Dick Lee & gang.
Theres nothing wrong with the music or the artistes, they are all good n nice, just don’t bombard me with all these warm & fuzzy nationalist stuff for no reason,
this is not national day & i suppose it cost money to make, doesn’t it?
2. the budget does not address the issue of singles being marginalized by pro-family policies, as the prices of HDB are partly influenced by household income (typically dual income), if singles were to ‘buy’ hdb flats upon reaching 35, most would still find it tough to pay for the installments on single income.
rational: singles contribute to nation building and the economy just like their married counterparts, n males also serve national service just like the residents of potong pasir, it is not acceptable to claim to make homes affordable to ALL singaporeans when “ALL” means married folks.
3. no budget measures to curb & check on unnecessary spending? for example spending good money to rename Marina Bay to “Marina Bay”.
the way we see is:
we are lower income family, having debts with the bills of SP and Town Council.
now we getting a peanut give away from gov, this peanuts eventually will be thrown in this SP and Town Council debts, without having anything extra for one time good healthy food,child and other necessary things.
give one hand take on the other hand.
there is no difference.
our ministers can get a pay cheque of millions and special bonuses in millions and we singaporeans were given just peanuts???
next GE will be the time to consider who to vote
send back the RIGHT signal during election.
ignore the ‘noise’ from the market.
after get the budget time to pay all the bills. it’s sickening to see this kind shadow game and increase once they win the GE.
yeah, you get budget you pay the SP and other government debts. then they increase after win GE this result in bigger debt with the government and by the time after 4years the debts is mountain high and government start to throw the peanuts again for their success to win.
they don’t care about us.
all they care is for their own success and greed!!!!
i disagree on giving out cash in a scatter gun-mass area damage manner.
we have to be specific and target those who need it most.
in the Budget [page 52, D.73], rephrased:
$300 will be given to those who live in more expensive homes(of high annual value) but who do not have high incomes – wats the point of doing that?
imho, those who are asset rich but had fallen on hard times should liquidate their assets and downgrade instead of holding them, n therefore they don’t really need monetary help.
if we give them money, they are effectively competing with the poor for common public resources$.
if i were the government, my budget would take care not to penalize the prudent nor reward the undeserved.
I’m sure someone would have spotted at least 1 difference between the SDP’s shadow budget, and the one presented by the 2 writers on this forum…
First of all, I am not a SDP fan.
The SDP’s shadow budget has a ‘different component’ concerning the appointments of MM, SM, and minister without portfolio to be removed (therefore the cost elements for those headcount opex will be dropped off).
Accidentally, or professionally, they have covered selectively, a branch of budgeting known as zero based budgeting for headcount opex. Some of us who have worked on corporate budgeting before, will identify with this as a stringent form of budgeting, which is extremely intolerant of wasteful funds, including headcounts. In this case, SDP has given the impression the appointments need to be justified on a pre-emptive basis.
additional random comments,
1.
trying to do too much with too little, trying to touch too board a base and make a difference to too many ppl, some probably belonging to the undeserved.
2. apart from giving cash outright, think of more innovative additional ways to help, the poor do not exactly have the reputation of being the best managers of money.
Budget give-aways are like medication. The more handout they give out, the more of a tell-tale sign of this society sickness. Thus in budget 2011 is a clear indication that people and business across all sectors of the pouplations are ailing. If employees and employers are well-taken care throughout the leadership, there is no necessity to focus on budget give-away. Besides, they are just temporary cure of a deep rooted problems faced in this society which triple the size of Budget handout will not completely cure the problems. This society is falling apart unless we have two-party systems or rule out PAP.
“”But these figures may look better because of the change in definition in 2009 to classify part-time workers as those working less than 35 hours a week, instead of 30 hours previously.”
So Ministers play cheat cheat also….(read some prints lah otherwise you are dumb dumb!)
The budget did not solve the MAJOR ISSUES but merely provided a short term go out to win GE with cash.
1. World lowest fertility – PM said this is not important now, does he mean he will continue to massive import FT to replace us?
2. Higher levy does not affect FT who came here with real or fake degrees, thousands a month.
3. Affordable HDB – most cannot afford now and 0.5% top up not in OA but in Special. This major issue is affecting most young Singaporeans wanting to have family!!!
4. Extremely high medical cost – he wants Singapore citizens to go to Malaysia for treatment and to die there? 0.5% top up can pay or what?
There is no cost control or better subsidies for housing and medical, this budget is just to hand out CASH to win GE. GST up another 3% to 10% will recoup everything they hand out, straight after GE.
5% wage rise? How come I dun have? I in that percentile. Prices like foods have just hiked by at least 7%.
Real net income?
here are some changes can be done to help more singaporeans.
1. Elected President SR Nathan – S$3.9 million.
down to $10k
2. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – S$3.8 million.
down to 10k
3. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew – S$3.5 million.
down to 5k( retirement pension)
4. Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong – S$3.5 million.
down to $10k
5. Senior Minister Prof Jayakumar – S$3.2 million.
down to 10k
6. DPM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng – S$2.9 million.
down to 10k
7. DPM & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean – $2.9 million
down to $10k
8. Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo – S$2.8 million.
down to $10k
9. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan – S$2.7 million.
down to $10k
10. PMO Miniser Lim Boon Heng – S$2.7 million.
down to 10k.
all equally paid. i’m sure 10k is more then enough to have 3 good meal a day and shelter. plus can save every month and go for vacation every year.
then the rest of the balance pay help singapore with the budget give away every month. that is call sharing the fruits!
they buy 100kilo apple every month for their elite to eat fresh.they kept 1kilo apple and after 4year they throw that apple on our face saying that they sharing the fruits!!
Mr Leong…
When I meet you, I will bow down real low to show my appreciation.
Thank You again.
Today, was interesting, I met a cabby, who mentioned that he earned $1,700.
He has 2 school going kids.
He mentioned,’ totally pissed ‘
that his kids were not given free text books and there was no Workfare for him.
His question to the officer was?
How do you base the Workfare?
Is it for someone just on the salary earned or if it is broard based on the number of kids they have too.
I felt, he made good logic.
A $200 higher income, cuts him off from all entitlement.
Honestly he was pissed.
At the end, this is what he told me.
“You know what is happening and I know it too.”
Perhaps what he left out was,
“Lets do something about it”.
Highest defence budget?
Citizen priorities gone wrong?
Or best opportunities for corruption in high places?
Just wonder with the yearly increase for defence budget, will it make Singapore any more safer ? And if cut by half instead, does it make Singapore any less safer ?
What happened to all the military equipment that we have accumulated all these years ? Lying somewhere, collecting dust to be written off or preparing for warehouse sale ?
Nobody has any clue what is happening to our ever increasing defence budget?
Wages rise for who? EP, S passes, PR or Singaporeans? Any breakdown to further justify whether Singaporeans truly benefited. From what I understood, Singaporeans were underemployed, unemployed or part-time employed. Under this scenario, how can wages be possibly be on the increase side?
Please refer to this article:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1111556/1/.html
On the YPAP FB, the moderator appended the comment that this ‘measure is in line with the Government’s policy of improving real wages for Singaporeans and reducing our reliance on foreign workers’. (The words are curiously the same ones used by the SDP in their proposal to reduce the intake of foreigners into Singapore.)
The normal interpretation of ‘reducing our reliance on foreign workers’ is that we will gradually reduce the total number of foreigners working in Singapore. Thus, if hypothetically, there are currently 100 000 foreign workers in Singapore, ‘reducing our reliance’ on them would mean bringing that number down to first, 80 000, say, then progressing to 55 000 and so on.
That is the impression that most people would form from reading those words. (I am trying to circumvent the PAP itself trying to obfuscate by adopting the same argument any time in the pre-election future.)
But absolutely none of the statements by the PAP has ever indicated that that’s what they intend. They have only ever indicated that the RATES of increase will not be as high as it was previously. (But the actual numbers will still increase.) Thus, if the number of foreigners working in Singapore used to rise by, say, 200 000 every month, the only thing that the PAP is perpared to do is to bring that down to, say, 150 000.
Indeed, didn’t Lee Hsien Loong say last year that the they were revising the intended intake of foreigners last year from 100 000 to 80 000? That is still a net increase of 80 000 foreigners; the overall numbers continue to increase.
Not surprisingly, neither has the PAP said anything about any downward revision of the 6.5m population target.
We continue to be misled and deceived by the PAP.
They can use the words that the SDP uses in their proposal. But they intend none of the substance of the SDP’s proposed policy.
We have lots of Officers shaking their damn legs in MINDEF.
Waiting for their pension/gratuity. Has anyone in MINDEF aware that if we are to fight a war, NSMen will not be that stupid to charge up the hill now.
Guerrilla do not have Rank when they fight.
So please allocating 4000 dollars per Locally born Singaporean on MINDEF is NOT JUSTIFIABLE.
wah this budget sound so generous.. i would be gettin $24 xtra/month..i go to ntuc inc
buy a few groceries and soya sauce..bill xceed $50…
so who so kindhearted to top up $26 for me?
~sigh~
To Apple
Wah, that’s 31.9 m in total for the top 10 minister.
Does any one have the TOTAL Ministers + all the MPs in the parliament pay per annum?
Where can I find the figures?
I like to see how much that adds per year viz a viz what they give out to the man on the street.
It’ll be good if the government can provide some assurances that they won’t increase gst or tweak cpf for the foreseeable future eg 4 years.
GST is also a tax, so ideally it has to be addressed by the Budget,
i would suggest that if the Finance Minister did not raise or lower GST during the budget no more changes can be made to it during the work year.
the next chance to change it is the next Budget for the next work year.
likewise for all kinds of taxes.
Increase in foreign levy does not affect foreign PMETs (EP holders) but only affects blue collar foreign workers.
Increase in CPF contribution afffects all Singaporeans especially those PMETs who earn more than $4500 monthly.
The Budget actually makes the Singaporean PMETs more expensive to hire than the foreign PMETs.
The Budget discourages wage increase for Singaporean PMETs, causes more Singaporean PMETs to lose their jobs and causes more difficulty for unemployed Singaporean PMETs to get job.
i believe many of the old singaporeans like myself studied the animal farm during their school days. I do not believe it is real until i seen with my very eyes what the papayas had done to Singapore!!! Send all the pigs to the slaughter house immediately
The gov’t top up CPF is like transfer from one govt a/c to another govt a/c ,the right hand give the left habd first, so that the CPF a/cwhile it is our but actula fact tempoaray “own” by them will alow them to invest more of their money in return giveing you a gaurantee return of 2.5% in OA & 4% in SA a/c
ppl will not be coerced into voting for the unscrupuous
6.6b for Singaporeans? Is that a lot? Look, the elections has been put off since 2009 – in that time, you-know-who would probably had accumulated this 6.6b to throw back at us now. Pure wayang.
What about the 52-60b lost at one time by TH? Let’s have a proper context of scale here. Does that means what TH had lost would have been sufficient “goodies” to us over 9-10 years?