Category: Culture

Treat companies well, but workers better

Over Christmas dinner, my mother lamented the time when just one working parent could support the family. My cousin, who had just started work, agreed, and added that couples today had to combine their incomes to raise a family.

That, I feel, summarises the state of the Singapore worker today — working longer hours just to raise a family and live in relative comfort.

The government’s plan to incrase the Goods & Services Tax (GST) only adds to the woe of the workers. Everyone will have to pay more for essentials.

Furthermore, GST is a regressive tax, which means that the lower-income will be hit the hardest, since a bigger proportion of their income will go to GST.

Despite the government’s claims that there will be scheme such as Workfare to offset the GST burdern for the lower-income, I question Workfare’s effectiveness, and for how long it can be sustained. The whole scheme of things seems to be geared towards everyone having to chase prices that will never stop rising.

Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam argued that the increase in GST is part of a larger effort to increase revenue “so that all Singaporeans enjoy better growth, lift all boats, so… everyone is better off.”

But are all the “boats” ready to be liefted, and is everyone comfortable in their boat? Some workers may only be rowing sampans, and the slightest wave will cause them to overturn. In fact, those most likely to benefit would be those who already have big boats.

Perhaps, the extra revenue would indeed benefit all, but do we really need the estimated $1.5 billion generated from the rise in GST so badly?

With the upcoming plan to amend the Constitution to redefine Net Investment Income (NII) to include realised capital gains, NII has been estimated to grow up to $5 billion from fiscal year 2005’s $2.67 billion.

Based on this estimated figure, the government has $2.5 billion to finance its programmes, since the constituttion allows the government to spend up to half of NII.

What are the exact plans for the extra revenue to be raised by the GST hike?

No one knows at the moment, but details are likely to be released when the Budget is announced in March. Perhaps the current uncertainty adds to the feeling of scepticism about the hike.

Even if the revenue was needed, one alternative might be to raise corporate tax. Instead, the government has plans to reduce corporate tax further.

Couple with the rise in GST, it seems the corporations will hold workers hostage, since workers will be made to pay more in their daily lives. This indirectly pays for the loss of tax revenue from lowering the corporate taxes so as to attract these corporations to set shop here and drive growth in our economy.

The on-going Central Provident Funds (CPF) debate also suggests such thinking.

When times were bad, workers took a cut in CPF contributions, but now that the economy is doing well, many corporations are hesitant to return to the former levels of contribution. Workers seem to be getting a raw deal again.

Some might argue that raising corporate taxes would mean that corporations pass on these costs to employees and customers with lower pay and higher prices respectively. I would argue that with higher corporate taxes, more money goes to the government who can in turn use it to our best interests, like funding for the social programs it promises with the rise in GST.

Most importantly, workers should be treated better just because they are human beings.

Are we born merely to work and make ends meet? No.

My grandmother once spoke of working hard in life in order to retire and enjoy her golden years. Today, senior citizens serve me at fast-food restaurants.

I remember a time when my parents came home to eat dinner as a family. Today, we eat outside the home, often alone. My friends used to talk about their ambitions in life. Today, we worry about not being able to find jobs after leaving school.

The government should take a leaf out of its latest policy to reduce subsidies for permanent residents and foreigners in healthcare and education services so as to “treat foreigners well, but Singaporeans better.”

The tax burden could be shifted to corporations so as to treat companies well, but workers better.

Similarly, CPF contributions should be returned to their original levels.

That would be a good way to guide the Budget for 2007.

The Nanyang Chronicle, 8th January 2007

From efficient to more effective policies

There are signs that Singapore is embracing diversity in society. The government’s latest move to replace streaming in the education system with a grouping system based on subject competency acknowledges that students have diverse interests and capabilities.

It also allows for a mix of students in classrooms, unlike the previous system that bred a sense of elitism when students were streamed solely according to how well they did academically.

In the same vein, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong’s initiative to review sentencing guidelines also recognises the many types of criminals the court has to handle. The current set of tools of imprisonments, caning and fines is based on the assumption that criminals are all the same and will respond similarly to such punishments.

With a wider variety of sentencing guidelines, judges can mete out punishments that will better help criminals rehabilitate and re-integrate with society.

These shifts in thinking in our education and judicial systems are models for how Singapore society develops. They recognise diversity among individuals and promote a gentler and more inclusive society — as envisioned by our Prime Minister and many Singaporeans. They also represent a shift from efficient towards more effective policies that can better address social issues.

Our political sphere can also benefit from such a change in mindset. The issue of ensuring politics is kept serious exluces more than it includes. It empowers certain individuals to this level of discussion, making politics apart from Singaporeans’ lives rather than a part of them.

With more diversity, there may be some loss in efficiency in governance and policy implementation but it might also be more meaningful and effective.

The Nanyang Chronicle, 9th Oct 2006

Getting an education in politics

I find it a coincidence that the year I began school also marked the beginning of Mr Low Thia Khiang’s start as my Member of Parliament in Hougang.

I was just completing my first year in primary school, when Mr Low of The Workers’ Party defeated Mr Tang Guang Seng of the People’s Action Party to win the Hougang Ward in 1991.

The only thing I remembered then was heading to the Hougang Stadium across from my house with my parents to attend the rallies of both parties.

I was dwarfed amongst the throngs who had come to hear the candidates and we were entertained for hours as they made speeches and jibes at each other. That marked the beginning of my education in politics.

It seemed like harmless entertainment then. Only years later did I learn that it was not that funny after all, as many of the opposition candidates ended up facing lawsuits for libel because of the things they said during their rallies.

In December 1996, my mornings often began with noise from the megaphone of the candidates who had hired vans to literally drive their message home. Sounds of “Vote for Low Thia Khiang” and “Vote for Heng Chee How” confused a boy who would only be beginning secondary school in a few days time.

I remembered asking my parents and myself: Who were these people?

This time around when we headed to the Hougang Stadium to watch the rallies, everything made much more sense.

Aside from the fact that I was taller and could see more of the stage, I had also become a newspaper reader.

The drama that unfolded in the days up to Polling Day filled the newspapers as personalities like Mr Tang Liang Hong and Mr J B Jeyaretnam fuelled the most exciting campaigning I have ever seen till today.

The crowd and I lapped it up, as if it was the only time our inner most grouses about the state of affairs in Singapore was articulated by tthese daring men.

They showed me how the PAP was not always right in their decisions and there was a need for more active citizenry and some kind of opposition in Parliament to ensure things were in check.

Even though both of them got sued for libel, and have become shadows of their former selves, I am still grateful for that 1997 campaign that cemented the foundations of my education in politics.

Politics, I learnt, went beyond the upgrading of flats and handouts, but rather meant a greater discussion about the direction that Singapore should take and what policies it should take to get there.

For the next five years, like every teenager who needed something to stand out, I wore the badge of living in an opposition ward with pride (yes, Mr Low Thia Khiang won again!). I felt a need to defend this pride and it forced me to keep abreast of the latest in Singapore politics through the news.

More often than not, I was disappointed, as the media was more preoccupied with the ruling party and its policies than giving a voice to the opposition. But, with only two out of 83 seats in Parliament in 1997, it is no wonder they were crowded out.

I also got to watch the estates around me get upgraded while there was hardly any upgrading in Hougang. It was the price we had to pay for voting in the opposition, I was told.

Yet, it was not as if my estate was left to crumble. We might not have the frills, but my estate has always been clean and well maintained. What more could I ask from one man as compared to one party?

More important to me, was the fact that the opposition was in Parliament to ask the questions that would often elude other members who came from the same party.

Very often, the opposition brought about a diversity of views that questioned the implementation of possibily myopic policies.

The next general elections arrived in 2001. That was when I learnt about how institution and legislation could act as barriers to the opposition.

The re-drawing of electoral boundaries wiped out the ward across the road from my hosue — Cheng San Group Representation Constituency (GRC) — and it became part of Aljunied GRC. Cheng San GRC was where The Workers’ Party almost won in 1997.

Till today, it still amuses me how you can live in Hougang and not be part of the Hougang ward, but belong to the Aljunied ward instead.

It has been 15 years and I still live in Hougang, an opposition ward. This upcoming general elections mark the first time I will be able to cast a vote. I count myself lucky, because there are Singaporeans out there who have never got this chance.

Moreover, I have been educated in the sights, sounds and thoughts of what an election is about, something which has prevented me from becoming just another apathetic Singaporean.

The Nanyang Chronicle, 29th March 2006