Connect with us

Commentaries

Singapore's tax on race

Published

10 years ago

on

racial-harmony
By Masked Crusader
Most Singaporeans, like me, have been making monthly contributions to the so-called self-help organizations Yayasan Mendaki, Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), or the Eurasian Association (EA) based on their ethnicity. I have done so for more than 20 years despite a certain queasiness which the little voice in my head had struggled to properly articulate. I, therefore, figured it would be prudent to go with the tide.
Earlier this week, the press reported that SINDA, CDAC and EA had increased the contribution rates by varying amounts ranging from a modest $0.50 to as much as $23 because some of the organizations have had to dip into their reserves to tide themselves over—which, in Singapore, is a cardinal sin.
While, in most organizations, a situation such as this might result in introspection and belt-tightening, the self-help groups decided it would sanction increases in contributions to break even since they had not done it in quite awhile. Then, a few days later, the government announced that they were going to increase funding to all the self-help groups (except Mendaki) to levels which would then far exceed the shortfalls the groups had given as the reason to increase the contribution levels. According to the reportage, the extra funding was for the groups to “expand their outreach and tackle new areas of need in their respective communities.” No details were provided about what these new initiatives may be.
sjgroups30
In light of these developments, I thought perhaps I should re-examine my discomfort to see if I could now put a finger on what it is that always nagged me about the notion of ethnic and religious based self-help groups.
Examining the history of these organizations yields interesting insights. Mendaki was established in 1982 when Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister at the time, presented data showing that the Malay community was under-performing in all areas, in particular, educational performance which impacted its economic mobility and contribution to society. Possibly in response to opposition to channeling public money for initiatives targeted at a single ethnic group, which had up till that point already been receiving assistance in the form of free education and bursaries, Lee convinced all Singaporeans that:

“It is in the interests of all to have Malay Singaporeans better educated and better qualified and to increase their contribution to Singapore’s development.”

Though no one could disagree with Lee’s statement, there were murmurings that Mendaki was not the most appropriate way to solve the problems of the Malay community. Among the critics were both Deputy-Prime Ministers at the time, S. Rajaratnam and Goh Chok Tong. Minister-in-Charge for Muslim Affairs, Ahmad Mattar—Mendaki’s founding Chairman—also acknowledged “risks” with this new arrangement.
A staunch multiculturalist, Rajaratnam’s concern was that the establishment of Mendaki would make society more conscious of race which could lead to racial divisions. This proved true, at least to the extent that pockets within other communities were starting to demand reciprocity for their own kind. It was inevitable then that SINDA would be formed in 1991 followed a year later by CDAC. In 1994, the Eurasian community, which made up less than one per cent of citizens, formed EA. All of them would ultimately start programs to give underachievers in their communities a leg up in education—something that was already the mandate of the Ministry of Education.
My main beef with these self-help groups is the underlying presumption that Singaporeans would—or should—contribute towards the development of people of their own race. I consider myself a Singaporean first and, thus, am concerned only with causes, not the ethnicity of those in need. After all, if we were to donate to the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped we do not—in fact, cannot—specify that it be used to benefit only the visually handicapped of a certain race.
I find it especially galling that the government has not only decided which causes I should make a contribution to but also what the amount of my contribution should be. What gives them that right? This makes my contribution a tax based on race. It is a particularly discriminatory tax since the amount is determined on the basis of ethnicity. As can be seen in the graphic above, minorities are taxed more than the Chinese.
Singaporeans pay this “race tax” by default. To opt out, one has to jump through hoops. And face the looks of derision from whom one requests and submits the necessary forms. What is especially disingenuous is that while it is possible to make additional contributions at websites of the self-help groups, there is no electronic way to opt out of the monthly deductions from one’s salary. While I am able to grudgingly accept the cynical techniques companies such as Singtel use to make it harder to unsubscribe from their services than when coming aboard, I find it regrettable that organizations with charity status would do likewise.
Some may argue that it is a donation, not a tax. If so, they must have a different dictionary than the one I use. A donation is given voluntarily. They may point out that it is not a tax since you can opt out and avoid paying. But they would be wrong. There are many forms of indirect taxes one can avoid paying. I could avoid paying the Certificate of Entitlement and Electronic Road Pricing for vehicles and the Foreign Worker Levy if I choose not to buy a car, take a taxi into the CBD, or hire a domestic worker.
In the coverage of the recent hike in monthly deductions, it is amusing to see reporters in the local media all struggle to find a way to express the “contribution” conundrum.
At asiaone.com, for example, the article is entitled: “Self-help groups ask better-off to chip in more” suggesting it is an appeal. But just below, in the subheading, it reads: “From next year, the Chinese, Indian and Eurasian self-help groups will raise monthly contribution rates. High-income earners face the largest increases.” This confirms that the contributions are anything but donations and contradicts the headline.
I have written previously about the politicization of the self-help organisations, all of which have been helmed since their inceptions by PAP ministers and MPs. In fact, Goh Chok Tong himself seemingly acknowledged this when he accused the Malays of disloyalty to the PAP after the 1988 general elections—never mind the government’s constant refrain that voting is secret—and wondered aloud if it was in the government’s interests to continue funding Mendaki. This state of affairs casts unnecessary aspersions both on the government’s motives as well as the intentions and independence of Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC, and EA.
Some practices I observe within the race-based self-help groups should be a cause for concern to society. There is an obsession, akin to an arms race, with academics and funding of education—presumably because no ethnic community wants to fall behind in the all-important economic stakes. Yet, there is a conspicuous dearth of initiatives to preserve cultures. Even when the government’s recent rhetoric has been to downplay the importance of the paper chase, it has increased funding to the self-help groups.
Also, there is a sense that the groups are more accountable to the government than the communities they are mandated to serve. And, perhaps not even to the government since funding is not based on a review of performance and the cost and value of initiatives but on the arbitrary basis of matching funds which each group raises.
SINDA appears to have a Tamil-centric culture that hinders the integration of new Singaporean Indians many of whom do not come from South India and hence are not Tamil-speaking. This divide is already a cause for concern amongst the Indian community in Singapore. The politicization of CDAC may have prevented it from advocating for what is close to the hearts of many in the Chinese community—the lifting of the discriminatory curbs on Chinese dialects. Mendaki is not only an ethnic-based group but also one based on religion creating serious issues for a small silent minority with Malay ancestry but who no longer identify themselves as Muslims. No other religious group in Singapore receives taxpayer’s money. Also, Mendaki is not the only Malay/Muslim self-help group that is funded by the government. There are others such as the Association of Muslim Professionals.
Racial discrimination is institutionalized within these organisations. A cursory glance at their staff directories will show that close to a hundred percent of their staff are of the same ethnicity. This would be a cause for concern in any other organization in Singapore. One might say, “Duh, of course SINDA hires primarily Indians, it’s an Indian organization.” Except it is funded by taxpayers of all ethnicities including those not represented by any of the current four major self-help groups.
This then begets the question: Should not there be a Filipino self-help group since it is apparent that there are significant numbers of ethnic Filipinos—possibly as many as Eurasians—who are Singapore citizens? Which begets a plethora of other questions. Who helps disadvantaged Caucasian Singaporeans? Might a Chinese Muslim who contributes to CDAC feel conflicted? After all an Indian Muslim can choose between contributing to SINDA or Mendaki. Since 2010, the government has allowed parents of different races to include both races in their children’s identity cards. Why should these children have to choose to which self-help group their “race tax” should go to? The list of questions goes on. This is because the government in its short-sightedness has been determined to squeeze the proverbial square peg into a small round hole. And, for the most part, Singaporeans of the four main ethnic groups who are beneficiaries of public funds have not thought too much of the issues since there have been reciprocal arrangements in place since 1994. Those outside of these groups or those who are conflicted have kept their thoughts to themselves.
Just to be clear, I do not object to self-help organizations formed along racial or religious lines. Just to the use of taxpayers money to fund them.
Ngee Ann Kongsi, for example, is a self-help group with which I would have few issues as they raise money through donations (and business ventures) to benefit their own kind. Nor would I be opposed to the Filipino Association of Singapore raising money to support people of their own race. Or of religious groups asking for donations to build a place of worship or fund their faith-based initiatives.
I shall be filling the necessary forms to cease the monthly deductions from my salary. I can think of far worthier causes to give my money to. Especially now that the government has increased funding to the self-help groups.
This post was first published at maskedcrusader.blogspot.sg

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
2 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending