Connect with us

Civil Society

$3 billion benefits to cope with inflation?

Sze Hian turns the microscope on the govt’s $3b help package and reveals some shortcomings.

Published

16 years ago

on

Uniquely Singapore

Leong Sze Hian

With headlines in our local papers screaming “S’poreans in line for $3b payouts” (TODAY, April 15), “$3b payout over the next six months” (Straits Times), “2.4m S’poreans to get $3b in benefits this year” (Straits Times), one would be hard pressed to find anything amiss.

The Ministry of Finance’s (MOF) press release that some 2.4 million Singaporeans stand to get $3 billion in benefits this year, to help them cope with the rising cost of living, is laudable.

Until you sieve through the $3 billion help package itself.

Skewed examples in MOF’s press release

In its press release, the MOF says:

“For example, a family of three living in a three-room HDB flat could receive benefits of about $5,000, which is about six times the estimated increase in their cost of living (Annex A), and a family of five living in a 5-room HDB flat will get about $4,900 – about 2.5 times the estimated increase in their living costs (Annex B)”.

The above two examples given may be skewed towards higher benefits, because they both have retirees and older low-income household members, who receive relatively higher benefits and the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) than the average household.

If we take for example, a typical family of a couple with two children, and household income of say $4,000 ($2,000 each working member), the direct cash benefits would be $1,100 ($700 Growth Dividends and $400 GST Credits).

Thus, the benefits may not be 2.5 times the estimated increase in living costs in 2008, but only 0.56 times ($1,100 divided by $4,912 (Annex B) divided by 2.5).

What percentage of households has a combination of both retirees and older low-income workers in the same household? This may probably be the exception, rather than the norm. Thus, the examples given by MOF are not terribly accurate or representative of households.

Offsetting inflation?

Further, despite claims by the government that the handouts will help combat inflation, this may not be completely true.

For example:

– Medisave top-ups which can only be used in the future when one is hospitalised. Also, MediShield premiums will be increased this year. According to the Straits Times, “basic MediShield insurance are set to increase – by about $120 for most people… They will go up for everyone, with older policy-holders bearing higher increases, and younger ones most likely paying just a few dollars more.” In another ST report, “For older people who are likely to require more hospital care, the premium is set to increase by less than $40 a month. Their current premiums range from $600-$705 a year. The change will push it to more than $1,000 a year for them.”

– The Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) can only be used when children enter university. How many households have children that enter universities annually? (Universities have also announced, in February 2008, an increase in tuition fees by between 4 per cent to 20 per cent – Straits Times.)

– The Property Tax Rebate may be negated by the increase in property tax for all HDB flats from 1 January 2008

– The U-Save Rebate may be eroded by increased utility tariffs. (Channel NewsAsia)

– The S & CC Rebate may be offset by the previous years’ increases.

– The Income Tax Rebates may not benefit the lower and middle-income, as over 60 per cent of Singaporeans do not pay income tax.

By the way, The PAP Community Foundation (PCF) has just announced that the fees at its kindergartens will increase by up to 100 per cent in July. (“Sharp hike in kindergarten fees”, Today, Apr 25).

It is important to note that the GST Credits are meant to offset the GST increase last year, and is not a new or extra measure to cope with the 26-year high inflation.

In the example given of a family of three living in a 3-room flat, with two retirees and a son earning $1,000 a month (Annex A), even after adding the direct cash benefits, the per capita household income would still be only about $449 (see below [1]), which is still below the criteria of $500 which is generally used to define a needy family in Singapore.

I feel that it may not be very appropriate to describe the so-called “benefits” as “six times the increase in their cost of living”.

Medisave top-up keeping step with healthcare inflation?

As to the claim of giving about 60,000 elderly an extra $100 top-up to their Medisave in September (“Over 80s to get extra $100 Medisave top-up”, ST, Apr 18), the total one-time ad-hoc top-up amount is only enough to pay for about one to one and a half years of the premium increase.

Remember that, according to news reports, Singaporeans aged 81-85 will need to pay between $30 and $40 more a month in premiums – or up to $480 more a year.

What’s the point of ad-hoc top-ups, when medical costs and premiums keep rising? How can the Medisave top-up be included as “benefits to help Singaporeans cope with inflation”?

To facilitate analysis and policy review of the impact of the benefits package, I would like to suggest that a breakdown of the different amounts for each benefit category for different households by income be made available to the public.

Raising wages not an option, depending on govt handouts is?

So, what else can be done to help Singaporeans cope with another 26-year high inflation of 6.7 per cent in March 2008? Raising wages?

Well, according to the acting Minister of Manpower, Gan Kim Yong:

“Raising wages to address the issue of rising costs may be an enticing option but that is not the right solution… He said adjusting wages upwards to meet rising prices would only result in a “price-wage spiral” and Singaporeans should look at the bigger picture.” (Channel NewsAsia)

It would thus seem that Singaporeans will have to regularly and constantly depend on the government for handouts in order to ‘fight’ inflation. Yet, such ad hoc top-ups will only be given “provided we have the surpluses in the budget”, according to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. (Channel NewsAsia)

Perhaps the more important – and puzzling – question is: Why have Singaporeans, with one of the highest savings rates in the world, become so dependant on government handouts to even just get by?

One shudders to think what would happen to the poorer Singaporeans if there were no “budget surpluses”.

Click on pictures to enlarge.

Special thanks to Grace Toh.

Additional contribution from Andrew Loh.

———————-

[1] $4,150 Growth Dividends + GST Credits + WIS plus $12,000 income, divided by 12 months divided by 3 persons.

Read also: The Relentless Rising Cost Of Living.

————————-

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Civil Society

29 organisations demand criminal prosecution of law-breaking police in Malaysia

A coalition of 29 organisations is demanding that Malaysia end the perception of shielding law enforcement officers from prosecution when involved in serious violations like torture and killings. Highlighting cases such as the disappearances of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, they call for accountability through criminal charges.

Published

2 days ago

on

3 October 2024

By

Activist Amri Che Mat and Pastor Raymond Koh

A coalition of 29 organisations is calling for an end to what they describe as a “policy” or perception in Malaysia that shields police and law enforcement officers from criminal prosecution, even when they are involved in serious violations such as death, torture, or human rights abuses.

These groups argue that law enforcement officers who break the law should be subject to the same criminal prosecution and sentencing as ordinary citizens.

The coalition points to several high-profile cases where police officers allegedly committed serious crimes, yet no action was taken to prosecute those responsible.

They argue that merely subjecting officers to internal disciplinary actions does not fulfil the public’s demand for justice. Instead, such officers must be charged and tried in open courts, allowing for transparency in the administration of justice.

Enforced Disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat

One prominent case cited is the enforced disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat. In 2019, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) concluded, following a public inquiry, that both men were likely victims of enforced disappearance carried out by police officers from the Special Branch.

The government formed a Special Task Force to investigate SUHAKAM’s findings, but when the report was completed, it was classified as an “Official Secret” and was not disclosed to the public.

Recently, during a civil trial initiated by the families of the victims, parts of the report were revealed.

These findings supported SUHAKAM’s conclusions, asserting that the officers involved were rogue individuals acting independently. However, despite this revelation, no criminal charges have been filed against the responsible officers.

The delay in prosecuting these officers, even after clear findings, further bolsters the perception that Malaysia protects its law enforcement officers from the full extent of the law.

Assault on Ong Ing Keong

In another case, Ong Ing Keong, a deaf and mute e-hailing driver, was allegedly assaulted on 28 May 2024 by a police officer escorting a VIP.

Despite video evidence supporting Ong’s claims, no charges have been brought against the officer involved. This case has raised further questions about the government’s willingness to hold law enforcement accountable.

Failures in Investigating Police-Related Deaths

The coalition also highlights multiple cases involving deaths caused by police officers, where no significant legal action has been taken.

A coroner’s court ruling on 31 May 2023 determined that the fatal shooting of three men by police officers was not justified as an act of self-defence. Despite this finding, the officers involved have not been charged.

Similarly, in a separate incident, the High Court ruled on 1 February 2024 that the death of a man in Sitiawan, Perak, at the hands of police was homicide, yet no charges have been filed.

The coalition argues that these incidents contribute to a widespread loss of public confidence in Malaysia’s criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to cases involving law enforcement officers.

They stress that the government must act decisively to ensure that justice is seen to be done, by investigating, charging, and prosecuting officers found responsible for these crimes.

Concerns About Torture and Deaths in Custody

There are growing concerns over allegations of torture and deaths in police custody, with many cases seemingly underreported due to victims’ fear or lack of faith in the system.

The groups worry that if the public continues to perceive that justice is inaccessible, it may lead to increased incidents of violence or retaliation against police officers.

The Need for Clearer Laws and Specific Offences

The coalition believes that existing Malaysian laws, such as the Federal Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, clearly outline the legal obligations of police officers.

However, they argue that there is a need for additional specific laws to address violations committed by law enforcement officers, particularly in cases involving torture, illegal searches, or denial of legal rights.

They propose enacting special criminal offences targeting police misconduct to ensure greater accountability.

They further highlight the challenge posed by the fact that police misconduct often occurs in the presence of fellow officers, who may be reluctant to report their colleagues. This creates a culture of impunity within the force, making it difficult for victims to seek justice.

Recommendations for Reform

The coalition’s demands include the immediate investigation, charging, and trial of the officers responsible for the enforced disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, as well as the disclosure of their whereabouts.

They also call for the prosecution of officers involved in the disappearance of Joshua Hilmy and Ruth Sitepu, based on findings from SUHAKAM’s public inquiry.

Moreover, the group advocates for the prosecution of the officers involved in the assault of Ong Ing Keong and those found guilty of homicide in recent court decisions.

They also call for the implementation of new laws to address police misconduct and for the government to take active steps to discard the perception that law enforcement officers are immune from prosecution.

The coalition urges the Malaysian government to demonstrate its commitment to justice by ensuring that all law enforcement officers who break the law are charged and tried in open courts.

This transparency, they argue, is critical to restoring public faith in the country’s criminal justice system.

The list of the 29 organisations in the coalition

  1. ALIRAN
  2. MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
  3. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
  4. Association of Home and Maquila Workers (ATRAHDOM), Guatemala
  5. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
  6. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
  7. Greenpeace Malaysia
  8. Global Women’s Strike, UK
  9. Haiti Action Committee
  10. KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee (KLSCAH CRC)
  11. Legal Action for Women, UK
  12. Migrant Care, Indonesia
  13. National Garment Workers Federation, Bangladesh
  14. North South Initiative, Malaysia
  15. National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), West Malaysia
  16. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
  17. PAYDAY Men’s Network (UK/US)
  18. Persatuan Amal Progresif Malaysia
  19. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
  20. Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
  21. Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)
  22. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
  23. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
  24. Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
  25. The Workers’ Assistance Center, Inc. (WAC), Philippines
  26. Union of Domestic, Maquila, Nexas and Related Workers (SITRADOM), Guatemala
  27. WH4C (Workers Hub for Change)
  28. Black Women for Wages for Housework, US
  29. Women of Color/Global Women’s Strike, US/UK
Continue Reading

Civil Society

WMP: The Dyson lay-offs is a test of how useful PAP’s relationship with unions is for workers

In response to Dyson’s recent layoffs, Workers Make Possible (WMP) questioned whether The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), an NTUC affiliate, will fight for workers’ livelihoods or accept defeat. WMP highlighted that many PAP leaders, including SM Teo Chee Hean and MP Patrick Tay, lead UWEEI’s Council of Advisors, raising concerns about its effectiveness.

Published

3 days ago

on

2 October 2024

By

The recent lay-off decision by UK-based tech giant Dyson in Singapore has raised significant questions about the effectiveness of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)’s relationship with unions, according to local civil society group Workers Make Possible (WMP).

In an Instagram post, WMP shared two screenshots of news articles, highlighting the irony of British billionaire James Dyson receiving the Public Service Star (Distinguished Friends of Singapore) award in July 2023 for his contributions to the Singaporean economy.

However, fast forward to recently, Dyson’s unexpected round of layoffs left many employees in shock and morale at an all-time low, with only a day’s notice given to The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), an affiliate of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

 

According to Channel News Asia, the layoffs come just three months after Dyson had assured staff that its Singapore operations, which serve as its global headquarters, would be unaffected by a global restructuring that had cut 1,000 jobs in Britain.

Employees reported that the retrenchment process was conducted discreetly, with affected workers receiving email notifications for private “one-on-one” meetings.

During these meetings, attended by human resources representatives, employees were informed that their roles had been rendered redundant.

A Dyson spokesperson responded to media inquiries by stating that the company was adjusting its team composition to ensure it had the right skills in place for future growth.

“Our ambitions in Singapore remain unchanged, and we expect to continue growing here in the medium term,” the spokesperson said.

Dyson did not, however, disclose the number of employees laid off or provide specifics on how the company plans to support the affected staff.

UWEEI expressed disappointment over the layoffs, revealing that it was informed only a day before the retrenchment, which left little room for meaningful discussions.

The union has since escalated the matter to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for further review.

While the union acknowledged that the affected employees fell outside its scope of representation under its agreement with Dyson, it pledged to support the laid-off workers in collaboration with NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).

UWEEI and e2i will assist with job searches, career coaching, and retraining. The union also called on companies to adhere to NTUC’s Fair Retrenchment Framework, emphasizing the need to protect local workers and ensure that adequate support is given during layoffs.

WMP Calls on UWEEI to Act Decisively Amidst Dyson Layoffs, Questioning PAP’s Commitment to Worker Advocacy

Commenting on UWEEI’s response to the recent Dyson layoffs, WMP noted that many PAP members are part of its Council of Advisors, with Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean serving as Chairman and PAP MP Patrick Tay as secretary.

WMP also pointed out that during a parliamentary sitting last month, PAP MPs fervently defended the importance of involvement in trade unions to protect workers.

“Critics should pause their judgement and see what the UWEEI can do in this moment of crisis for the laid-off workers,” WMP remarked.

The group questioned the effectiveness of UWEEI’s actions, suggesting that if PAP MPs are correct in their assertions, then UWEEI should not remain passive.

“It surely cannot be the case that all the UWEEI is able to advertise up-skilling programs to laid-off workers?”

WMP questioned what UWEEI’s next steps will be and whether they will accept defeat or fight for workers’ livelihoods.

 

Continue Reading

Trending