$2.8bil surplus a year, and can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds

[The_Republic]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/08/28bil-surplus-a-year-and-can%e2%80%99t-afford-300-a-month-for-some-destitute-85-year-olds/

« TOC Breaking News: Safety concerns cause US, Japan to ground F-15 fleet two weeks after Singapore buys 12 F-15s (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/07/toc-breaking-news-safety-concerns-cause-us-japan-to-ground-f-15-fleet-two-weeks-after-singapore-buys-12-f-15s/)


$2.8bil surplus a year, and can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds? (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/08/28bil-surplus-a-year-and-can%e2%80%99t-afford-300-a-month-for-some-destitute-85-year-olds/)

Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on November 8th, 2007

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Singapore%20Healthcare%20System/RS350.jpg


By Leong Sze Hian & Yeo Toon Joo

We have been told by the Government the Budget has been in surplus most years – and “$2.8 billion a year of investment income” had not been spent.

Where did that sum go? Did it end up as “cheap” funds for Temasek and GIC to invest?

Why not use a negligible fraction of that surplus from year 2042 to help Singaporeans who live beyond 85 instead of enforcing the unpopular Longevity insurance scheme?

If our country has $2.8 billion a year in spare cash why can’t our Government pay just $300 a month from 2042 to a small number of poor Singaporeans endowed with longevity?



$2.8 billion is only one per cent of the annual return on Singapore’s reserves which, if returned to CPF members by way of higher interest, is about a one per cent increase in the current CPF interest rate for contributors.

The compounding effect of this one more per cent could translate into tens, if not hundreds, of thousands more in returns for every Singaporean when he or she retires.

For example, $60,000 now plus $500 monthly CPF contributions from age 30 to 65, at 5 and 6 per cent will grow to $914,436 and $1.2 million, respectively. So, a one per cent rise in CPF return (for a worker earning $1,450 monthly at the current CPF contribution rate of 34.5 per cent) translates to $288,894 more when he retires.

Isn’t this far better than giving a one-time housing grant that may be consumed by the risks of servicing a 30-year HDB flat mortgage, or giving a few hundred dollars of occasional top-ups to our CPF account? And are such so-called grants really subsidies when prices of HDB flats rise faster than the so-called housing grants?

“We are not stingy”, Govt rebuts its own rebuttal on CPF funds and changes!

In the following news articles, “Should you invest your CPF savings elsewhere?” (Sunday Times, Sep 30), “Govt spent $2.8b over last 5 years to fund grants, subsidies” (ST, Sep 29), “CPF changes needed to tackle future problems: PM” (ST, Sep 24), and the Ministry of Finance’s reply “Govt investments de-linked from CPF funds” (ST, Sep 29), (link (http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_162462.html)), it was reported that:

“The Government has spelt out just how much it spends on grants and subsidies that go into people’s retirement savings in a rebuttal to criticisms that it is tight-fisted. Over the last five years, it ploughed back an average of $2.8 billion a year of investment income into the Budget.”


The main thrust of the Government’s rebuttal could be the best “self-rebuttal” against its own rationale for the CPF changes.

The Government has also said it does not depend on CPF funds which, it claims, are not cheap but “expensive” money, and, if it needed to borrow, it could do so more cheaply by issuing government bonds.

On the contrary, if not for the large CPF funds supplied by the people, tapping the market may increase the cost of its borrowing due to its much higher volume of borrowing.

The people’s funds in CPF, in a way, paradoxically enables the current official practice of selling subsidised HDB flats to Singaporeans – at ever increasing prices!

If you look at recent HDB property launches over the last two years you will note the tremendous rises in prices, e.g. the hike in the last three launches of new 4-room HDB flats at Fernvale was more than the increase in the CPF Housing Grant (HG) or the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG).

The average price increase over the last 2 years was $62,500, which was more than the entire maximum CPF Housing Grants!

On 25 October, just one month after the Fernvale launch, the HDB launched TelokBlangahTowers – with $402,000 the highest price for a 4-room flat, a whopping 60 per cent rise over the highest priced $252,000 at Fernvale. This, I believe, is a record high for new 4-room subsidised public housing! (CNA (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/print/307777/1/.html))

What kind of housing grant is this if your flat prices rise more than the grant? How can the HDB housing loan subsidy be called a subsidy when it takes in CPF from Singaporeans at 2.5%, then lends it back to them at 2.6%?

Why build so many high-priced flats when many can afford only cheaper smaller ones?

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Housing/punggol.jpg


In the articles “HDB glut shrinks in rising market” and “More 2-room, rental flats soon” (ST, Oct 18), it was said that “It (HDB) resumed offering two-room flats for sale last year and has launched 539… “

In the next six months, it will offer 4,500 new flats under the build-to-order (BTO) system, which places flats on the market only if there is sufficient demand.
So far, in the first nine months of the year, HDB has offered 2,700 new flats under BTO. It will also release another three new Design, Build and Sell Scheme sites, which will yield about 1,500 flats.
There are, I understand, about 200,000 households with monthly income of $2,000 (the income ceiling for two-room flats) or less. Why then is the HDB building so few two-room flats (539 since last year, and only after not building any for many years)?

And, why is it building many times more flats that are bigger and at rapidly increasing prices (as much as 40% higher than 2 years ago for new 4-room flats at Fernvale)? (link (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/26/why-does-hdb-need-to-increase-prices-of-flats-so-rapidly/))

Funding Singaporeans’ retirement savings through ad-hoc and piece-meal housing grants and subsidies, goes against the core principle of self-reliance that has been the bedrock of our pensions system.

Instead it should grant higher CPF returns, as it will reinforce the need and desire of Singaporeans to plan and save for their retirement.

Is it any wonder then that no amount of top-ups or lucky draws has succeeded in persuading the self-employed to contribute to CPF accounts! Could it be that returns are just too low?



http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/08/28bil-surplus-a-year-and-can%e2%80%99t-afford-300-a-month-for-some-destitute-85-year-olds/

[Kiwi8]

Yeah, agreed. :o

[The_Republic]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/08/28bil-surplus-a-year-and-can%e2%80%99t-afford-300-a-month-for-some-destitute-85-year-olds/

« TOC Breaking News: Safety concerns cause US, Japan to ground F-15 fleet two weeks after Singapore buys 12 F-15s (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/07/toc-breaking-news-safety-concerns-cause-us-japan-to-ground-f-15-fleet-two-weeks-after-singapore-buys-12-f-15s/)


$2.8bil surplus a year, and can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds? (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/08/28bil-surplus-a-year-and-can%e2%80%99t-afford-300-a-month-for-some-destitute-85-year-olds/)

Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on November 8th, 2007





Why build so many high-priced flats when many can afford only cheaper smaller ones?

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Housing/punggol.jpg


In the articles “HDB glut shrinks in rising market” and “More 2-room, rental flats soon” (ST, Oct 18), it was said that “It (HDB) resumed offering two-room flats for sale last year and has launched 539… “

In the next six months, it will offer 4,500 new flats under the build-to-order (BTO) system, which places flats on the market only if there is sufficient demand.
So far, in the first nine months of the year, HDB has offered 2,700 new flats under BTO. It will also release another three new Design, Build and Sell Scheme sites, which will yield about 1,500 flats.
There are, I understand, about 200,000 households with monthly income of $2,000 (the income ceiling for two-room flats) or less. Why then is the HDB building so few two-room flats (539 since last year, and only after not building any for many years)?

And, why is it building many times more flats that are bigger and at rapidly increasing prices (as much as 40% higher than 2 years ago for new 4-room flats at Fernvale)? (link (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/26/why-does-hdb-need-to-increase-prices-of-flats-so-rapidly/))

Funding Singaporeans’ retirement savings through ad-hoc and piece-meal housing grants and subsidies, goes against the core principle of self-reliance that has been the bedrock of our pensions system.

Instead it should grant higher CPF returns, as it will reinforce the need and desire of Singaporeans to plan and save for their retirement.

Is it any wonder then that no amount of top-ups or lucky draws has succeeded in persuading the self-employed to contribute to CPF accounts! Could it be that returns are just too low?



http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/08/28bil-surplus-a-year-and-can%e2%80%99t-afford-300-a-month-for-some-destitute-85-year-olds/
I am not sure interviewing PAP MPs who give their own reasons why more and more couples cannot afford to get their own homes before marriage will help give a better impression of the crisis.

It seems in the end , it is still the fault of Singaporeans.

I am sure not everyone is happy with Golden Period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?p=26735512#post26735512

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_177670.html?vgnmr=1



No flat = No wedding

Newly-weds who find it hard to get a flat amid buoyant property market are putting off their weddings



By Tan Hui Yee, Housing Correspondent

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/common/c.gif

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/common/c.gif
AS PROPERTY prices rise, some newly-wed couples are postponing their traditional ceremonies while they wait for a new Housing Board flat.

Many have been priced out of the resale market while others want to buy a new home, which means joining the hordes trying their luck at ballots in HDB sales exercises.

It is leaving couples in a dilemma. While they have registered their marriages officially, they are reluctant to hold the customary ceremony that legitimises the union in the eyes of the community, until they have a home to call their own.

Members of Parliament say they are getting more appeals from distressed couples.

Aljunied GRC MP Cynthia Phua, who raised a question on the availability of flats in Parliament this week, told The Straits Times that one or two such couples bring up the problem at her Meet-the-People session every week.

Although technically married, many of them live apart, in their family homes, while waiting to get a flat together.


http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20071117/sharprise.jpg



Madam Phua said: 'For us Asians, once you hold back your customary wedding, you can't live together, and you can't even have babies.'

Deliveryman Ang Kah Liong, 34, has unsuccessfully applied for a new flat 10 times since he registered his marriage with his girlfriend three years ago. The couple - who earn $3,000 a month - live with Mr Ang's parents and three elder brothers in their family's two-bedroom flat.

They were determined to wait until they had a flat of their own before holding the customary ceremony but family pressure finally prompted them to hold it in September.

'I had no choice,' said Mr Ang. 'I could not wait anymore.'

People like Mr Ang are being caught in a supply-demand crunch.

The buoyant resale market, which has seen prices grow by 11 per cent in the first nine months of this year, is fuelling a demand for new HDB flats.

In the July to September quarter, five-room flats in Queenstown - a coveted district - sold for a median sum of $110,000 above their valuations. This means a buyer had to pay at least $110,000 in cash as that amount cannot be covered with a home loan.

So young couples who cannot afford such resale prices - even with government grants that can go up to $40,000 - are turning to new HDB flats.

MPs told The Straits Times that many seek help to get a new flat near their parents' homes but this can be difficult as these are usually in older estates where few new flats are being built.

Jalan Besar MP Lily Neo said: 'Many couples want to live near their parents in the Central Business District, but as you know, there aren't many flats there.'

They stand a better chance of getting a flat if they are willing to consider other locations, said Dr Neo.

Application figures for recent HDB sales exercises show how competitive the flat race can get.

The HDB received almost 8,000 applications for just 400 flats in Telok Blangah recently, and more than 1,600 applications for 516 homes in Punggol.

The HDB is pumping up the supply of new homes to meet demand. A further 3,600 flats are expected to be offered under the build-to-order system from now until March.

However, the Government has stated that it cannot meet all the demand for new HDB flats as that would risk creating an oversupply in the future.

Meanwhile 28-year-old secretary Koh Bee Leng and fiance Julius Lim, 30, who hope to marry next year, carry on with their house-hunting. The couple have set their eyes on four-room flats in a mature estate such as Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh, but have had no luck in two sales exercises this year. Ms Koh said: 'Everything is uncertain now, because of the issue of the availability of the flat. That's delaying our plan to get married.'


http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?p=26735512#post26735512


http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_177670.html?vgnmr=1

[largeresource]

yes the PAP can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds

but can afford $2,000,000 ministers paycheck

so PAP assked you "u not happy??!!!"

[Humster]

yes the PAP can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds

but can afford $2,000,000 ministers paycheck

so PAP assked you "u not happy??!!!"

(-_-lll Don;t ask....

Later got one tell you...

"She choose this path." :)

But don;t do anything stupid... since you can get life imprisonment for it.

[The_Republic]

yes the PAP can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds

but can afford $2,000,000 ministers paycheck

so PAP assked you "u not happy??!!!"

Remember the Trishaw Man Vs 3 British ??


Must he work until he dies ???

He should be at home enjoying life instead fighting for 10 dollars like life and death. He do not have much more years to go.


But our government refuse to allow such thing to happen or else who will feed the CPF system ??

Will all of us end up like the Trishaw Man ???

[Humster]

Remember the Trishaw Man Vs 3 British ??


Must he work until he dies ???

He should be at home enjoying life instead fighting for 10 dollars like life and death. He do not have much more years to go.


But our government refuse to allow such thing to happen or else who will feed the CPF system ??

Will all of us end up like the Trishaw Man ???

We will. And that inevitable. Is things go on like this.

[largeresource]

Remember the Trishaw Man Vs 3 British ??


Must he work until he dies ???

He should be at home enjoying life instead fighting for 10 dollars like life and death. He do not have much more years to go.


But our government refuse to allow such thing to happen or else who will feed the CPF system ??

Will all of us end up like the Trishaw Man ???


some old man does not like to sit around
and some dont take charity

for me, if they can work and still drive the economy
i will not give them money but help and protect them from abuse by setting up a service that provide this

[The_Republic]

We will. And that inevitable. Is things go on like this.

Now even newly-weds have problems getting a home without worrying their future savings will not be enough.

I thought HDB was set up to solve Singapore's Housing Crisis instead of adding to the crisis?

When an organisation turns money face be it NKF, Ren Ci, HDB, Government etc...who suffers ???

[Inix]

Remember the Trishaw Man Vs 3 British ??


Must he work until he dies ???

He should be at home enjoying life instead fighting for 10 dollars like life and death. He do not have much more years to go.


But our government refuse to allow such thing to happen or else who will feed the CPF system ??

Will all of us end up like the Trishaw Man ???
If you read the new paper, his son did says that they did ask him to retire. It was he who refused and wanted to earn some pocket money for himself.

[Inix]

Now even newly-weds have problems getting a home without worrying their future savings will be not enough.

I thought HDB was set up to solve Singapore's Housing Crisis instead of adding to the crisis?

When an organisation turns money face be it NKF, Ren Ci, HDB, Government etc...who suffers ???
Buy further, buy smaller?

[The_Republic]

If you read the new paper, his son did says that they did ask him to retire. It was he who refused and wanted to earn some pocket money for himself.
I can only hope it is true cause

- it makes his son looks good

- it makes government looks good.

- help government promote Work Until Die attitude.

Its MSM and I can only hope it is true.

Pardon my cynicism.

[The_Republic]

Buy further, buy smaller?

Yep, follow the Minister's "cheaper alternatives" solutions.


Queen: Peasants cannot afford bread and going hungry ??

Version 1: Eat Biscuits lor

Version 2: Eat Cake lor

But whatever it is, it is not my fault.....


Peasants: ?!?!?!?!?!?

[largeresource]

in US, president post 2 terms fark off

in UK, PM post 2 term better fark off.

[Inix]

Yep, follow the Minister's "cheaper alternatives" solutions.


Queen: Peasants cannot afford bread and going hungry ??

Version 1: Eat Biscuits lor

Version 2: Eat Cake lor

But whatever it is, it is not my fault.....


Peasants: ?!?!?!?!?!?
And then you have the french revolution. Leaving the PAP out of this, its about living within your means. Thats all. Don't expect to buy a condo when you can't even afford a 5RM flat.

[money321]

The government seem like doing to destruction and sooner or later, there will be social problems.

[screwme]

The government seem like doing to destruction and sooner or later, there will be social problems.
judging by the controversies caused by charitable and religious organisations im not surprised.

[NTB2DO]

And then you have the french revolution. Leaving the PAP out of this, its about living within your means. Thats all. Don't expect to buy a condo when you can't even afford a 5RM flat.

Still, I can't help but miss the old PAP. My father, the sole breadwinner, with a salary of slightly below $1k in late 70s, paid $10k for a 3-rm flat, or about 10x his salary. Now? Income ceiling for applying 3-rm flat is $3k. The price? $120k-$150k, or 40x-50x of $3k. and that is in Punggol. 4rm would cost 1.5x more (wrt 3rm), and 5rm, doubled. The increases in HDB price vs increase in income appears to be almost exponential.

[huhster]

in US, president post 2 terms fark off

in UK, PM post 2 term better fark off.

doesnt work in sinkapore

[The_Republic]

And then you have the french revolution. Leaving the PAP out of this, its about living within your means. Thats all. Don't expect to buy a condo when you can't even afford a 5RM flat.

Nobody is talking about Condominium or Big Flats.

It is basic and cheaper housing people wants without bankrupting their retirement funds.

[The_Republic]

doesnt work in sinkapore

That is what PAP wants Singaporeans to believe in.

[Fatfool]

Yep, follow the Minister's "cheaper alternatives" solutions.


Queen: Peasants cannot afford bread and going hungry ??

Version 1: Eat Biscuits lor

Version 2: Eat Cake lor

But whatever it is, it is not my fault.....


Peasants: ?!?!?!?!?!?
(she didn't actually say that btw, it was just made up later) none the less, apparently that queen was pretty ignorant anyway so hmm.... I do remember her head rolling off after that. :o

[The_Republic]

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?p=25360796#post25360796

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/29/questions-about-pensions-hdb-cpf-transport-jobs-charities-etc/#more-456

Questions about pensions, HDB, CPF, transport, jobs, charities, etc. (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/29/questions-about-pensions-hdb-cpf-transport-jobs-charities-etc/)

Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on August 29th, 2007

By Leong Sze Hian (http://leongszehian.com/)

On this morning’s (29 August) NewsRadio 938 Talkback programme from 8.10am to 8.50am, the guest on the programme, MP Halimah Yacob, NTUC Assistant Secretary-General and Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chairperson on Health, said that Ministers no longer receive pensions.

She was replying to a caller who asked why and whether it is equitable for Ministers to continue to get pensions, when the people have to purchase a compulsory deferred age 85 annuity paying just $250 to $300 a month.



However, in a reply (http://app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%20to%20ST%20forum%20letters_4Apr07.pdf)to the Straits Times Forum dated 4 April, 2007, the Prime Minister’s Office said that:

“The Government moved away from the pension scheme for the majority of civil servants since 1986. However, the pension scheme is retained for the Administrative Service and the Intelligence Service where there is a strong reliance on the depth of expertise and length of experience for continuity of national policies.

For the same reason, the pension scheme has been retained for Office Holders, namely, Speaker, Ministers, Ministers of State, Mayors, Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries, given their role and impact on national policies, provided they serve long enough to qualify for a pension.”

And in 2004, then-DPM Lee Hsien Loong had also clarified with former NCMP Steve Chia in Parliament that indeed, the pension scheme is still in practice. (link) (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/25/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/)

Now, Ms Yacob’s remarks on the radio programme may have cast doubts on both the PMO and the PM’s clarifications.

So, do they get pensions or don’t they?

Hello! Anybody home?

On another note, I refer to the Auditor-General’s (AG) report in the last few years.

If not for the questions raised by the AG, the public may not be aware of the various lapses, from the answers given by the ministries and statutory boards.

I looked back at my letters to the newspaper forums, and have listed below some of the questions that I asked, but did not get an answer.

1. Education - How many foreigners are given scholarships relative to Singaporeans ? (“What’s ratio of foreigner to local scholarships”, BT, Oct 13, 2006)

2. Healthcare - What was the surplus accumulated, and what happened to it, when MediShield Plus was privatised to an insurance company ? (“Hello ? Anybody listening”, BT, May 25, 2005)

3. HDB - What is the breakdown of the cost of land and construction for HDB flats ? (“Settle question of HDB subsidy once and for all”, ST, Jan 2, 2007)

4. Charities - Why was NKF’s Institution of Public Character (IPC) status reinstated within a month of it’s termination by the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) ? (“Lesson from Kids : Stop passing the buck”, ST, Dec 24 and 21, 2005)

5 Transport - Why is the Public Transport Council’s household income data different (much higher – up to 61 per cent more) from the Department of Statistics’ data, in the report on the affordability of fares ? (“The poor will benefit most from transport fare cap”, ST, Nov 30, 2006)

6. CPF - Why is it that poorer Singaporeans who do not withdraw their CPF at age 55 and who do not meet the Minimum Sum are given lower interest, compared to those who can meet the Minimum Sum ? (“Increase 2.5% CPF interest rate”, BT, Dec 19, 2006)

7. Investing - After 11 years, about 75 per cent of CPFIS investors did not beat the Ordinary Account’s 2.5 per cent. What are the statistics after 12 and 13 years ? (“CPFIS investors and their losses”, ST, May 20, 2005)

8. Jobs - What is the breakdown for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, for new jobs created, number of unemployed and the unemployment rate ? (“Show the numbers to dispel notion that foreigners take away jobs from S’poreans”, ST, Dec 22, 2006)

According to the World Bank report, “Governance Matters 2007 : Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2006”, Singapore’s score for Voice and Accountability fell further to a low 46.6.

As I believe Singaporeans may like to know the answers to some of the above questions, which pertain to the use and accountability of public funds, I would like to suggest that perhaps the AG could ask some of them in the next year’s report.

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?p=25360796#post25360796

[The_Republic]

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1716719

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/04/3rd-world-savings-1st-world-cost-of-living/

3rd World Savings, 1st World Cost of Living (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/04/3rd-world-savings-1st-world-cost-of-living/)

Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on September 4th, 2007

This is a letter from Jason, one of our readers.

It has been argued strongly that elderly Singaporeans are not saving enough, despite the CPF scheme. This is hardly surprising.

The CPF was introduced in 1955 when Singapore was a Third World colony. Our per capita GDP (at current market prices) in 1960 was S$1,306. This figure rose significantly to S$13,725 in 1983 and to S$35,552 in 1996. Today Singapore is a First World nation and this is well backed by our 2006 per capita GDP figure of S$46,832.

The transformation of our country has led to rapid increase in the cost of living as suggested by historical Consumer Price Index (CPI) data. Using 2004 as the base year (=100.0), the CPI was 31.9 in 1961 (1960 figure not available), 74.7 in 1983, 94.3 in 1996 and 101.4 in 2006. (Source for statistics: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/))



The cost of retirement

Senior Singaporeans played individual minor, but fundamental roles in driving this economic miracle. Back in the 1960s, through the 1990s, they probably could not have imagined, how with hindsight, their salaries, by the same token their CPF savings, will appear so meagre today. Likewise they would not have expected the cost of retirement to be so expensive.

It appears that the pioneer generations of Singaporeans have become victims of their own hard work and success. Having earned Third World wages and made Third World savings in their younger days, they suddenly find themselves living, and dying, under the weight of First World costs.

Over the years Singapore has accumulated substantial wealth, including those made through investments worth millions by the GIC and Temasek Holdings. No one guarantees workers above 62 will find good paying jobs and the proposed compulsory annuity’s payout of $250 to $300 is a drop in the ocean by today’s costs of living. While we applaud our government’s initiatives to stretch our retirement savings, it is high time we tap on our riches to help those with inadequate CPF monies to overcome the disparity of Third World savings, First World costs.

It is increasingly urgent for the government to lower the cost of living for retired Singaporeans. This could be done by co-paying for their essential expenses, such as medical, healthcare and public transport. This should not be viewed as pouring resources into a bottomless pit. Just as government investments into the economy through mega-projects like the IRs and hosting of F1 are now rewarding handsomely, investments into such schemes will generate the economy and the welfare of our people.

The CPF Board website states “CPF ensured that workers could support themselves with dignity in retirement”. Would the government play its part to fulfill this?


http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1716719

[The_Republic]

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1707758


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/25/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/#more-452

Annuities for Singaporeans, pension for ministers? (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/25/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/)


Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on August 25th, 2007



By Andrew Loh

The current debate on the issues of retirement, compulsory annuities and the CPF shows up 2 stark contrasts.



For ordinary Singaporeans, the annuity scheme - to put it simply - is basically a “pool fund” where the old support the old when they retire. When they pass away, their contribution to the fund is used to support the ones who are living, those 85 and above.




For government ministers, their “retirement” scheme is something from way back in the past. I am talking about the Pension Scheme for the Administrative Service (AS). (This includes prime ministers, senior ministers, speakers, ministers of state, mayors, parliamentary secretaries and political secretaries.) (link) (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QsUvRun6sGYJ:app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%2520to%2520ST%2520forum%2520letters_4Apr07.pdf+ministers+pension&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg)



Yes, the pension scheme is still being implemented today, for the AS.



Former Non-Constituency Member Of Parliament (NCMP) Steve Chia had asked then deputy prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, about this – in Parliament, 2004:



“Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers’ money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers’ money until they die. Am I right to say that?”



DPM Lee’s reply was that yes, Administrative Officers (AO) are on the pension scheme and that the government is “going on market terms”. He also added that:



“There is no free lunch.”



(See the exchange between Mr Chia and DPM Lee at the end of this article.)



“No Free Lunch”. Really?



The question which some of us have is: “Why are Singaporeans being asked to contribute to what is effectively a pool fund – through the proposed compulsory annuities scheme – so that surviving elderly Singaporeans can have “$250-$300” per month, while ministers’ retirement are taken care of by the pension scheme, funded again by taxpayers?



Does not the dictum “No Free Lunch” apply to ministers as well?



And: Why is the pension scheme retained for the Administrative Service when it was phased out for “majority of the civil service since 1986”? (link) (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QsUvRun6sGYJ:app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%2520to%2520ST%2520forum%2520letters_4Apr07.pdf+ministers+pension&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg)



Another question is: Why are our ministers still on the pension scheme when they are already being paid the highest salaries in the world, in any government anywhere on earth?



According to the Prime Minister’s Office, in a letter to the press in April 2007:



“The maximum pension for a Minister drawing a total annual salary of $1.2 million is $176,500 per annum …”(link) (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QsUvRun6sGYJ:app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%2520to%2520ST%2520forum%2520letters_4Apr07.pdf+ministers+pension&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg)



Elderly Singaporeans, aged 85 and above, can expect only $250 to $300 per month from the annuity scheme. As my colleague, Sze Hian (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/24/unanswered-questions-about-cpf-changes/#more-451) said, assuming 1.5 per cent inflation, the $250 to $300 monthly annuity, is equivalent to $149 to $178 today.



This is more astounding when you consider that Singaporeans have one of the highest savings rate in the world!



What else do ministers get?



Paying government leaders an appropriate remuneration has been debated and the government, at least in the foreseeable future, is not going to budge. Indeed, their salaries will be “revised” upwards again at the end of this year and one more time next year. (link) (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm)



Further, the government also increased the GDP Bonus for ministers. According to Minister Teo Chee Hean:




“We will increase the bonus to a norm payment of 3 months if the economy grows by 5%. The minimum payment will remain at zero if the economy grows by 2% or less. The maximum will be increased to 8 months if the economy grows by 10% or more.” (link) (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm)

And the Performance Bonus (which all administrative service officers receive):



“We will increase the Performance Bonus by 2 months for officers at this level, to a norm of 7 months.” (link) (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/269330/1/.html)



Making sense of it all

To summarise, ministers receive the highest salaries in the world, they also receive pensions (either after they leave the service or reach 55. There are also active ministers who are presently 55 or above 55 and who are also receiving pensions at the same time. See below exchange between Steve Chia and DPM Lee), they are given a GDP Bonus of anywhere from 3 months to 8 months (conditional on the GDP) and a Performance Bonus of 7 months.



Looking at all these dizzying numbers, should one begrudge the ministers such remuneration? Perhaps not, but as leaders elected by the people, leaders who are suppose to set the tone for society, much more is expected.






http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1707758

[The_Republic]

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=25318955

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/25/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/#more-452


The Great Affective Divide – resurrected?

There is a certain sense of unease among Singaporeans – when they compare what their leaders are earning and what they are struggling with.

The widening income gap is indeed well and truly upon us. And it is not just an income gap.

I would say there is also a moral gap. An affective divide (http://www.geocities.com/eril_project/gad.html), to borrow from Catherine Lim. A return of disaffection.
(http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/03/28/pap-and-the-people-a-return-of-disaffection-revisited/)
How do you explain to an 85 year old that he will only be receiving $250 to $300 per month when he stops working, even with an annuity scheme? (This sum is not much more than the $290 which those on Public Assistance receive from the government, which is for “subsistence”.)

And that when he passes away, he cannot delegate the money to his children or spouse (unless he opts to pay a higher premium) and that it will go into a “pool” to support other 85-year-olds and above who will also receive $250 to $300 per month? (link (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/295348/1/.html))

How do you explain to someone who would have worked some 40, 50, 60 years that he will only have $250 to $300 per month when he no longer is able to work?

Moral authority, moral leadership

As in this article (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/12/damage-control-by-the-prime-minister/) published earlier, the question of moral authority or moral leadership re-surfaces.

The question of moral authority is something which some government ministers have denied or brushed aside. Minister in charge of the Civil Service Teo Chee Hean was quoted by Channelnewsasia as saying:

“It is wrong to think that a bigger pay would undermine the moral authority of the government.”(link) (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/specialreport/news/269573_34/1/.html)

But isn’t this happening right now? That people are questioning the government’s and the ministers’ moral authority? That there is this perception – real or otherwise – that the government (and ministers) are so well-paid that they can no longer empathise with the average Singaporean?

That ministers’ retirement needs are taken care of by tax payers money through the Pension Scheme while tax payers have to fend for themselves when they retire, if ever they do?

Annuities for Singaporeans, pension for ministers?


In the words of Catherine Lim, be mindful of the affective gap (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/05/be-mindful-of-the-affective-gap/).



Additional note:

I do not wish to carp over the vast gap between what the rich deserve and what the average Singaporeans will get as retirement pay-outs. But, if we accept the premise that our leaders deserve such handsome retirement benefits, one still cannot help but ask: how can anyone, especially an aged person, make do with just $250 or $300 a month in Singapore?

This is not just a debate on equity, i.e. what is realistic and fair, but on what’s right by a caring government and those in high positions who have the power to decide what to give themselves as their old age nest egg and what to dole out to those without the power to demand something more.

Certainly, our leaders should not be so tight fisted with the people of Singapore. They should instead do something positive and right to reduce the misery of the lower income, who form a substantial number of Singaporeans.

Parliamentary exchange between NCMP Steve Chia and DPM Lee Hsien Loong, 16 June 2004:

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers’ money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers’ money until they die. Am I right to say that?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member’s implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving Minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules.

Thanks to “Totally Confused” (http://totallyconfused.blogspot.com/2006/05/did-you-know-ministers-on-pension.html) for recording the parliamentary exchanges quoted above. The Parliament Reports website (http://www.parliament.gov.sg/parlweb/hansard_search_latest.jsp) no longer provides transcript to these past sittings.

You can read about the Parliamentary Pensions Act here (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1978-REVED-219&doctitle=PARLIAMENTARY%20PENSIONS%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=888373251-000067) and here (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getcont.pl?actno=1978-REVED-219&doctitle=PARLIAMENTARY%20PENSIONS%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1).

Cartoon courtesy of My Sketchbook (http://seijieiga.blogspot.com/)


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/25/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/#more-452

http://forums.hardwarezone.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=25318955

[The_Republic]

I think the best way is to get all these needy ppl out of poverty with 2 ways.
Government help and community help. I suppose the govt could put them on a kind of list, help them to earn a living, once they are able to depend on themselves. Then we all help others.

You wait long long.

Present situation is only community help is given.

Government will never help fearing "crutch mentality"

[The_Republic]

The government seem like doing to destruction and sooner or later, there will be social problems.

Social problems has already begun.

Look at annual suicide rates.

[NTB2DO]

Social problems has already begun.

Look at annual suicide rates.
Ya. Few months ago a middle-aged man jumped down from my flat! Last year there was another one few blocks away..Wonder if it's due to financial problem like the one who jumped down MRT track.

[daylight]

the better do more to help the lower and middle income group in next year budget, with inflation rate sky high now.

[greenbubble]

the billion $ spare cash go into .... :s11:

[funnydogboy]

i dont see why we can't spent a couple of million dollars helping those old people

[The_Republic]

i dont see why we can't spent a couple of million dollars helping those old people

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/22/uniquely-singapore-charity-%e2%80%93-f1-or-f9-helping-the-poor/


« TOC Breaking News: 50 Burmese nationals protest (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/20/toc-developing-news-protest-planned-by-burmese-nationals/)


Uniquely Singapore: Charity – F1 or F9? Helping the poor? (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/22/uniquely-singapore-charity-%e2%80%93-f1-or-f9-helping-the-poor/)

Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on November 22, 2007

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/146-1.jpg


By Leong Sze Hian (http://leongszehian.com/)

After watching the Cancer Charity Show, my friend’s sister, a 50 plus housewife, was so depressed, that she jumped from the 10th floor of her HDB flat, the day after the show.

As I watched elderly sick Singaporeans pleading during the show, that they have no money for medical treatment, medicine, and one lady who said that she did not even have 10 cents, the first thought that came into my mind, was isn’t there Medifund to help those who cannot pay for medical fees and Comcare to help the poor ?

Since the reason given for raising the GST, was to help the poor, and the hike has already been implemented on 1 July, why do we keep hearing of pleas for help from the sick and the needy ?



I would like to suggest that a detailed breakdown be given of what and how the estimated $ 1.5 billion from the GST hike will be used to help the poor.

Too much resources for fund raising?

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/PAP/aljunied.jpg


According to a ChannelNewsAsia report (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/312410/1/.html):
“Fifteen groups sharing different religious faiths came together as one on Sunday to raise funds in a big way for community projects in Aljunied GRC.

At the community bonding carnival in Hougang, each of the groups, including the Singapore Buddhist Lodge and Jamiyah Singapore, set up a stall either selling food or organising games for residents.

A maximum of S$350,000 in tickets was sold and the proceeds will go towards new facilities for the GRC’s Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division. The carnival is the first in a series of fund-raisers involving the religious groups in the constituency.

Beneficiaries include the 19-year-old Punggol Community Club – expected to cost millions to refurbish - a Dragon Boat House at BedokReservoirPark and a kidney dialysis centre.”

Are we directing too much resouces in our fund raisng activities for “new facilities for the GRC”, refurbishing a Community Club, Dragon Boat House, etc, at the expense of funds for the needy?

All of the above manifestations may be attributed to the root cause of the problem, which is the widening income gap.

The ever-widening income gap

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/capt.jpg


In this connection, I refer to the article “Bigger but unequal pay gains seen for ‘08” (BT, Nov 19).

It states that “Manual workers, again at the bottom of the payout scale, are likely to get a merit raise of 3.7 per cent in 2008, compared to 3 per cent in 2007”.

With increasing inflation expected to hit 4.5 per cent by 2008, the median wage increase for manual workers may in effect be a negative increase in wages in real items. This may further contribute to the widening income gap, which was one of three major challenges facing Singapore as highlighted by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently.

In this connection, according to the Reuters news report “Singapore’s economic boom widens income gap” of 9 November, “the proportion of Singapore residents earning less than S$1,000 (US$690) a month rose to 18 percent last year, from 16 percent in 2002, central bank data released late last month show… and Singapore’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, and is now in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7), data from Singapore’s Household Survey and the World Bank show”.

I refer also to media reports that Taiwan is becoming an M-shaped society because of the widening income gap, and that the number of Singapore millionaires could soar to 29,000 by 2011.

Last year, the top 20 per cent of Taiwanese households earned six times more than the bottom 20 per cent.

In contrast, using data from the Department of Statistics’ Key Household Income Trends 2006, the top 20 per cent of households in Singapore, earned about 12 times more than the bottom 20 per cent, based on the “Average Monthly Income from Work Per Household Member Among Employed Households by Decile”.

Does the above mean that the income gap is about 6 times more than the Taiwanese ?

In Taiwan, the average household at the top earned $ 82,300 (NT $ 1.82 million), whereas it was $ 13,700 (NT $ 304,000) for the average household at the bottom.

In comparison, Singapore’s top decile by average monthly per household member was $ 83,880, versus $ 3,600 for the bottom decile.

From the above, if we assume three members per household, the top earned $ 251,640 and the bottom $ 10,800.

So does it mean that we earn about 205 per cent more at the top, and about 21 per cent less at the bottom, when compared to the Taiwanese, on this basis ?

(Note : As the household income data is not given in decile format, I have used the per capita household income data in the above analysis. This analysis has been quite difficult because of the selective availability of data for different time periods.)

Helping the poor?

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Housing/oneroom350.jpg


In Taiwan, some $ 11.3 billion (NT $ 250 billion) was handed out to the poor in assistance schemes that included monthly subsidies of up to $ 270 (NT $ 6,000) for the elderly.

In Singapore, about 3,000 destitutes get $ 290 a month in welfare. How much do the elderly poor in Singapore get a month ?

Since the reason given for raising GST was to help the poor, how much was spent last year helping the poor, and how much will be spent this year following the GST increase ?

As a point of comparison, Singapore’s per capita Gross National Income was $ 45,353 in 2006, compared to Taiwan’s, estimated to be about $ 42,000.

The poor in Taiwan pay $ 18 (NT $ 400) a month for a 36-sq-m rental flat.

In Singapore, a 1-room HDB rental flat starts at $ 44.50 ($ 26 rental plus $ 18.50 Service and Conservancy Charges) for households earning not more that $ 800 a month. Those earning more pay higher rentals.

In view of the above comparative statistics, I would like to suggest that we review some of our policies like the extra 1 per cent interest on the first $ 60,000 of CPF, because the poor may stand to gain less relative to the rich, as they may have lower CPF balances. The $ 700 million that the extra 1 per cent will cost, may be better directed to the poor instead.






http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/22/uniquely-singapore-charity-%e2%80%93-f1-or-f9-helping-the-poor/

[The_Republic]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/sfsp/

SFSP

The Society of Financial Services Professionals will be holding a Free Public Forum

CPF Changes : Implications for Financial Planning ….. Getting, Keeping and Growing Your Money

Saturday, 1 December 2007

2 pm to 5 pm

NTUC Income Centre, Auditorium 7th Storey,

Bras Basah Road
(nearest MRT : City Hall)

No registration required, just turn up

Programme

2.05 pm Opening Address by Guest-of-Honour
Braema Mathi
Former NMP, Chair of Maruah Singapore

2.15 pm CPF Changes : Options and Implications
Leong Sze Hian
President, SFSP

2.45 pm What are the Risks and Rewards of Investing your CPF ?
Benny Ong
Vice-President, SFSP

3.15 pm Interval

3.35 pm Debate on the CPF Changes: For and Against

The Society for Associated Inter-Tertiary Debaters

4.05 pm How to Invest your CPF ?

Mark O’Dell

President, Financial Planning Association of Singapore, Life Insurance
Association

4.35 pm Panel Q & A

Above 3 Speakers and Ong Teow Soon, Membership Chair, SFSP

5.00 pm End







http://theonlinecitizen.com/sfsp/

[The_Republic]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/27/ministerial-salaries-%e2%80%93-2nd-upward-revision-soon/


« Catherine Lim’s open letter to the prime minister (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/26/catherine-lims-open-letter-to-the-prime-minister/)


Ministerial salaries – 2nd upward revision soon (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/27/ministerial-salaries-%e2%80%93-2nd-upward-revision-soon/)

Posted by theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) on November 27, 2007

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Ministers%20Pictures/cabinet.jpg


By


Andrew Ong and Andrew Loh

On the 9th of April 2007, Minister in charge of the Civil Service, Teo Chee Hean, announced in Parliament:

“Salaries at the MR4 Grade are currently at 55% of the benchmark. Given the large gap, it is not realistic to close the gap fully in one go. Instead, we will close half of the current gap, that is, from 55% of the benchmark, to 77% of the benchmark by the end of this year.

This will be effected in two steps - one step now, and another step at the end of this year. Next year, we aim to close half of the remaining gap, bringing salaries to 88% of the benchmark by end-2008.”
(Sprinter) (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm)


The first revision took place on 1st April 2007. The second revision is expected to take place anytime from now till the end of this year, as the minister said. Given that it is uncertain if Parliament will sit in December, one wonders if the second revision will be debated or discussed in the chambers.

How will Singaporeans react if and when it is announced?

Booming economy, inflation woes

The economy is booming. GDP growth for the whole year is projected to be between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent (CNA (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/312392/1/.html)). On the job front, according to a study by IBM Consulting Services:

“Singapore created 598 jobs per 100,000 last year, making it the top-ranked country in terms of job creation productivity, far ahead of even the second-placed CzechRepublic, which had 389 new jobs per 100,000 residents last year.” (MFA) (http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,8712,)

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Government/risingcost.jpg (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Government/risingcost.jpg)



However, not everyone is enjoying the fruits of what MM Lee called “Singapore’s golden period”. Besides the widening income gap, inflation has also crept into the equation.

The latest report on the Consumer Price Index makes for depressing reading for many Singaporeans. October’s CPI was 3.6% - the highest in 16 years. (See here (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20071123/tbs-as-fin-eco-singapore-inflation-3c8dc0d.html)).

Daily necessities are rising in cost with no end in sight. Everything from public transport to flour, from chicken to eggs, from petrol to housing prices, from milk to electricity have shot up, some to record levels. PM Lee’s recent assurance that inflation is “well under control” (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/09/business/EU-FIN-ECO-Hungary-Singapore.php) is little comfort to those who are struggling to keep up.


(See TOC’s aggregation of the price hikes for 2007: The relentless rising cost of living (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/27/the-relentless-rising-cost-of-living-in-singapore/).)

Inflation for 2008 is expected to reach 4%. (Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_174085.html))





http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/27/ministerial-salaries-%e2%80%93-2nd-upward-revision-soon/

[The_Republic]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/27/ministerial-salaries-%e2%80%93-2nd-upward-revision-soon/


Inflation – falling off the chair

With last Saturday’s Straits Times frontpage headline- “October inflation hits 16-year high of 3.6%” (http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINSIN14512420071123) - grabbing the attention of many Singaporeans, it is clear that cost has not only risen but is also a major worry for Singaporeans.


http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Government/ST7407030740703001_01_0001.jpg (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Government/ST7407030740703001_01_0001.jpg)


The ST reported in that article that DBS Bank’s Irvin Seah “fell over his chair” when the figure was revealed. “This is way beyond market analyst expectations,” he further added. “We knew inflation would go up. We just didn’t know it would come so quickly.”

This piece of news was a confirmation of the dreadful reality that the average Singaporean is already aware of – and living daily. What was disturbing about the news is that the 2 per cent hike in the goods and services tax (GST) in July was cited as one of the causes for the rising cost of living.

This is definitely not good news, especially for the lower income group.

The GST hike in question

When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong first announced his plans (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/241058/1/.html) to increase the GST from 5 percent to 7 percent on 13 November 2006, he explained it thus:

“Speaking in Malay, Mandarin and English, Mr Lee explained that the hike was necessary to finance the enhanced social safety nets, needed to help the lower income group and he emphasised that the offset package would more than counter the rise in GST.

While Singapore’s current model to tackle the widening income gap is sound, Mr Lee said the government would take on two approaches to deal with the new environment - to strengthen the safety nets and tilt the balance in favour of the lower-income groups who do not benefit from the fruits of economic growth.”


However, from the recent article by Reuters titled “Singapore’s economy boom widens income gap (http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSIN20069020071109?pageNumber=1&sp=true)” and with the figures of the record inflation presented to us, things do not seem to be happening in favour of the lower income group at this point of time as planned.

In fact, it appears that things are worse than before - the gap widening more and the lower income struggling to make ends meet or to keep up.

It looks like it is the lower to middle income (the mass) groups that are truly footing the bill for the economic development in Singapore with the high income group continuing to reap the “juiciest” fruits of our economic growth.

Good time to revise ministerial salaries again?

In light of the above, is it a good time to revise – upwards – ministerial salaries again? Government ministers have said, when defending their pay hike, that there never is a good time to increase salaries. That may be so but there also should be consideration for moral leadership.

In the April announcement of ministers’ pay hike, revisions were also made to bonuses for ministers. On GDP Bonus for ministers, Mr Teo said:

“We will increase the bonus to a norm payment of 3 months if the economy grows by 5%. The minimum payment will remain at zero if the economy grows by 2% or less. The maximum will be increased to 8 months if the economy grows by 10% or more.” (link) (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm)

On Performance Bonus for ministers:

“We will increase the Performance Bonus by 2 months for officers at this level, to a norm of 7 months.” (link) (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/269330/1/.html)

Thus, it would seem that ministers would be getting a windfall this year-end. A second upward salary revision, a 7 months Performance Bonus and a 3 months GDP Bonus – since GDP is expected to be between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Government/2002-04-05mumanddadworkonrichpoorga.jpg (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r19/theonlinecitizen/Pictures%20Posted%20on%20TOC/Government/2002-04-05mumanddadworkonrichpoorga.jpg)


For the average Singaporean, he can expect continued competition with foreigners for jobs, the lower-skilled Singaporeans continue to have their wages depressed by cheaper foreign labour, he can also expect record inflation leading to an even higher cost of living next year, as some experts are predicting.

It is little wonder then that there have been no public announcements of the 2nd revision of ministers’ salary so far. It is undoubtedly a politically sensitive issue. One wonders if any announcements will be made at all, with the year ending soon.

We have slightly more than one month to wait to find out.

Read also: Annuities for Singaporeans, pension for ministers? (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/25/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/#more-452)

And: “Singapore less attractive to expats: Survey” by TODAY (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/224228.asp).


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/27/ministerial-salaries-%e2%80%93-2nd-upward-revision-soon/

[The_Republic]

http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2007/11/disappearing-subsidy.html

The Disappearing Subsidy....




Yes, the GST hike is to help the poor.

Yes, means testing is to help the poor.

Charity shows also help the poor.....

Why are there so many poor people in the richest nation in the region?...

Given Singapore is now so affluent, one would expect more subsidies for the poor. There are many people impoverished by rising cost as their incomes remain relatively unchanged. My relative who is a technician is one of them. Having a family to support, he gets by by pinching on everything. ..every dollar counts. ...with the recent bout of increases there was even greater pressure to cut down.

Unfortunately his daughter got sick on Saturday and was sent to A&E. The doctor wanted to admit her for observation. Mindful of the need to save, he asked for class "C". He was told by the admissions clerk that it was not available. When the govt tells us subsidised care exists, it does not mean it is available for those who need it.

You want subsidised dental care? Go arrange it at the polyclinic where you have to wait for months. Has the availability of subsidised care has been reduced as the cost of medical care rose? Many poor Singaporeans don't even go seek emergency medical treatment at the A&E when they need it because one of the first thing the hospital does before they treat you is to collect $75.

As Singapore aspires to be a medical hub, it expands its capacity to treat the private foreign patients which include millionaires from Indonesia, Middle East and the occasional junta leader who is not denied medical care for humanitarian reasons.

If you are very poor and need medical care, what do you do? Some have no choice but to appeal to the public during the NKF shows or the Cancer Charity Show. The money donated goes to a charity that is regulated by the "light touch" of our govt, hopefully you get some of it for your medical treatment. Singaporeans are compassionate people, they feel alot better after donating to charity.
.
----------------------------------------------------
By Leong Sze Hian

After watching the Cancer Charity Show, my friend’s sister, a 50 plus housewife, was so depressed, that she jumped from the 10th floor of her HDB flat, the day after the show.

As I watched elderly sick Singaporeans pleading during the show, that they have no money for medical treatment, medicine, and one lady who said that she did not even have 10 cents, the first thought that came into my mind, was isn’t there Medifund to help those who cannot pay for medical fees and Comcare to help the poor ?

Since the reason given for raising the GST, was to help the poor, and the hike has already been implemented on 1 July, why do we keep hearing of pleas for help from the sick and the needy ? I would like to suggest that a detailed breakdown be given of what and how the estimated $ 1.5 billion from the GST hike will be used to help the poor. Too much resources for fund raising?

According to a ChannelNewsAsia report: “Fifteen groups sharing different religious faiths came together as one on Sunday to raise funds in a big way for community projects in Aljunied GRC. At the community bonding carnival in Hougang, each of the groups, including the Singapore Buddhist Lodge and Jamiyah Singapore, set up a stall either selling food or organising games for residents.

A maximum of S$350,000 in tickets was sold and the proceeds will go towards new facilities for the GRC’s Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division. The carnival is the first in a series of fund-raisers involving the religious groups in the constituency. Beneficiaries include the 19-year-old Punggol Community Club – expected to cost millions to refurbish - a Dragon Boat House at Bedok Reservoir Park and a kidney dialysis centre.”

Are we directing too much resouces in our fund raisng activities for “new facilities for the GRC”, refurbishing a Community Club, Dragon Boat House, etc, at the expense of funds for the needy?


All of the above manifestations may be attributed to the root cause of the problem, which is the widening income gap. The ever-widening income gap In this connection, I refer to the article “Bigger but unequal pay gains seen for ‘08” (BT, Nov 19). It states that “Manual workers, again at the bottom of the payout scale, are likely to get a merit raise of 3.7 per cent in 2008, compared to 3 per cent in 2007”.

With increasing inflation expected to hit 4.5 per cent by 2008, the median wage increase for manual workers may in effect be a negative increase in wages in real items. This may further contribute to the widening income gap, which was one of three major challenges facing Singapore as highlighted by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently.

In this connection, according to the Reuters news report “Singapore’s economic boom widens income gap” of 9 November, “the proportion of Singapore residents earning less than S$1,000 (US$690) a month rose to 18 percent last year, from 16 percent in 2002, central bank data released late last month show… and Singapore’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, and is now in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7), data from Singapore’s Household Survey and the World Bank show”.

I refer also to media reports that Taiwan is becoming an M-shaped society because of the widening income gap, and that the number of Singapore millionaires could soar to 29,000 by 2011. Last year, the top 20 per cent of Taiwanese households earned six times more than the bottom 20 per cent. In contrast, using data from the Department of Statistics’ Key Household Income Trends 2006, the top 20 per cent of households in Singapore, earned about 12 times more than the bottom 20 per cent, based on the “Average Monthly Income from Work Per Household Member Among Employed Households by Decile”.

Does the above mean that the income gap is about 6 times more than the Taiwanese ? In Taiwan, the average household at the top earned $ 82,300 (NT $ 1.82 million), whereas it was $ 13,700 (NT $ 304,000) for the average household at the bottom. In comparison, Singapore’s top decile by average monthly per household member was $ 83,880, versus $ 3,600 for the bottom decile.

From the above, if we assume three members per household, the top earned $ 251,640 and the bottom $ 10,800. So does it mean that we earn about 205 per cent more at the top, and about 21 per cent less at the bottom, when compared to the Taiwanese, on this basis ? (Note : As the household income data is not given in decile format, I have used the per capita household income data in the above analysis. This analysis has been quite difficult because of the selective availability of data for different time periods.) Helping the poor?

In Taiwan, some $ 11.3 billion (NT $ 250 billion) was handed out to the poor in assistance schemes that included monthly subsidies of up to $ 270 (NT $ 6,000) for the elderly. In Singapore, about 3,000 destitutes get $ 290 a month in welfare. How much do the elderly poor in Singapore get a month ? Since the reason given for raising GST was to help the poor, how much was spent last year helping the poor, and how much will be spent this year following the GST increase ?

As a point of comparison, Singapore’s per capita Gross National Income was $ 45,353 in 2006, compared to Taiwan’s, estimated to be about $ 42,000. The poor in Taiwan pay $ 18 (NT $ 400) a month for a 36-sq-m rental flat. In Singapore, a 1-room HDB rental flat starts at $ 44.50 ($ 26 rental plus $ 18.50 Service and Conservancy Charges) for households earning not more that $ 800 a month.

Those earning more pay higher rentals. In view of the above comparative statistics, I would like to suggest that we review some of our policies like the extra 1 per cent interest on the first $ 60,000 of CPF, because the poor may stand to gain less relative to the rich, as they may have lower CPF balances. The $ 700 million that the extra 1 per cent will cost, may be better directed to the poor instead.




http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2007/11/disappearing-subsidy.html

[The_Republic]

Refresh for latest round of price hikes for utilities and transportation.

[solidghost]

It can really be depressing to see all these price increases and it comes at the time when the economy is slowing down. It is even more depressing to see that all these big government linked/controlled businesses and whatnot earning huge profits but nothing (or maybe just the scraps) is given back to the people. Tells you what kind of people we have at the top.

[Just Me]

Somewhere out there in a small dot on the map :

PM is appointed by old faggot papa and nobody has the right to interfere so whoever complains better fark off. :D

[pete98]

Somewhere out there in a small dot on the map :

PM is appointed by old faggot papa and nobody has the right to interfere so whoever complains better fark off. :D

Luckily the son capability seems limited and is as charming as a komodo dragon. Hopefully once the old one kicks the bucket........ The empire falls.

[solidghost]

I would rather the dynasty falls and the empire remains. Hopefully a kinder and more understanding leader will take over from this reign of terror.

[GrimaH]

I would rather the dynasty falls and the empire remains.
And keep all the red tape against actual welfare and political fairness, and the PAP-made laws allowing them to siphon off taxpayers' money at will?

Hell no.

[Bfrost]

It can really be depressing to see all these price increases and it comes at the time when the economy is slowing down. It is even more depressing to see that all these big government linked/controlled businesses and whatnot earning huge profits but nothing (or maybe just the scraps) is given back to the people. Tells you what kind of people we have at the top.

increase during good times - because the people can afford it
increase during bad times - because the company can't afford it

:s13:

so in the end who suffers? we do. :s16:

[daylight]

and now they are going after those who supposedly abuse the rental flats scheme.

[kopi22]

this is such a sad place to live in.... am so unlucky to be part of this island..... sad....

:(

[undiscern]

Majority of singaporeans gives thumbs up to all our govt policies through elections... So lets close ranks and move on.

[MasterCard]

Wonder how much many millions of dollars Nparks spent on upkeeping the trees?????? :s13:

[The_Republic]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/how-to-make-better-use-of-government-goodies/



Browse > Home (http://theonlinecitizen.com/) > Guest Writers (http://theonlinecitizen.com/category/guest-writers/), Main Stories (http://theonlinecitizen.com/category/our_writers/current-affairs/) > How to make better use of Government “goodies”
How to make better use of Government “goodies”

Wednesday, 15 October 2008, 10:45 am | 134 views

John Ang / Guest Writer



In recent, (as well as rather distant) memory, we have seen a relentless increase in prices (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/the-relentless-rising-cost-of-living-in-singapore/) of almost everything you would pay money for. Among them are rising food prices, rise in ERP, in medical care/insurance, and more recently, rising utility tariffs and public transport costs.



Through almost all these price increases, the trend has been that the average Singaporean has had no choice but to grit his teeth and bear the increases in cost, simply for the lack of an alternative; so much so that we have come to expect it to be the norm. (These days, I am so jaded that yet another price increase doesn’t incite indignation, but resignation.)



Goodies and Rebates


The Government has tried to help with these increases through the “goodies and rebates (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20080415998.pdf)” given out in 2007 and 2008. The Workfare Incentive Scheme, Growth dividends, GST credits, U-Save and S&CC rebates all contribute to help buffer the increase in prices over and beyond their intended scope (for needy Singaporeans, at least).





Yet, I feel that the middle-class Singaporean isn’t really looking at the 3 billion dollars being thrown his way in terms of tiding him over (see record turnout (http://www.singaporeexpo.com.sg/index.php?option=com_yanc&act=view_more&Itemid=74&news_id=74) and sales at NATAS and the various IT shows). In fact, like me, they might have clean forgotten that the payout was coming in October.



Free money (though not much) is always welcome (and how free it is can be debatable), but the way it is now, I feel that these monies can be put to much better use by the individual (with some government help).



Here’s how



When I read about the increase in subscription fees for Singtel’s land lines, I just shrugged in resignation and moved on to the next page. Imagine the breath of fresh air I felt when the next day, I opened the newspaper to see Telco wars: StarHub dangles $100 carrot (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/280219.asp). After such a long time of having “no choice”, here on offer was a cheaper alternative, based on an alternative infrastructure (VoIP instead of land lines).



It made me realise that the reason we have no choice is because we have been neglecting potential alternative infrastructures.



Thus, instead of just giving citizens money to buffer the increase in electricity tariffs, why not put that money in an account (accessible with singpass), that in addition to offsetting bills, can also be used to purchase environmentally friendly, energy saving electrical appliances, but more importantly, used to build up alternative infrastructure, such as self-power generation through the use of solar, wind, or biomass means, or to even have the house supply the grid.



Or, how about using these monies to provide a fast, convenient system. For example, in my article on cycling (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/ptw-bicycles-the-missing-link/) as a form of public transportation, people can actually fast track these credits to buy bicycles, or even use them to buy bike rentals or maintenance. (All these through vendors at bulk rates).



The incentives in pursuing these alternative paths include convenience to the individual, reducing his expenditure and more generally, alleviate the pressure on our existing infrastructure as well.



In short, like Starhub, we would be generating competition for the power companies, for the transport companies, for all the companies that you could think up an alternative to. If there is one thing true about competition, it’s that it brings prices down. We all could do with some of that.




http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/how-to-make-better-use-of-government-goodies/