election fever is on in Sngapore
for the first time in the lives of many singaporeans, they get to vote
for the first time after i attained the official age for adulthood, i get to vote...
always thought that the GRC that i stayed was too insignificant / unattractive / ulu to attract the opposition's attention..
haha
i have largely refrained from commenting/expressing my political views
i guess part of the older generation's fear have rubbed off me...
another reason is because i have not been particularly following the political / election news...
this makes it rather inappropriate for me to be making comments that make me seem ignorant
however, it is only fair that i read up on what the opposition contesting in my ward has to say before i cast my vote on polling day right?
so, i am sacrificing my sleep time to do this post with my observations on the manifesto of the opposition contesting in my ward...
now, just as the ruling party's assumptions and calculations have been subjected to strict scrutiny and criticisms, the same standards should be applied to the oppositions right?
*at
2.40am 2.50am, after i finished typing i realised that this is an insanely long post that can match geri's post about politics...please skip it if you are not interested*
1. Rising cost of living
On their website, they have mentioned that according to MOM, the median income of singaporeans for 2009 is $2,710.
A check on MOM's website (
http://www.mom.gov.sg/Documents/statistics-publications/Statistical-Charts/mrsd_MedianGrossMthlyIncomeEmpRes_Ct_310111.pdf) shows that $2,710 is the median income as at June 2010.
however, it is also noted that the above discrepancy is not material enough to invalidate all of their calculations.
next i wonder if the median income includes CPF contributions?
i should think and would think median income would include CPF contributions.
In their calculations, they have not provided for the amount of contributions to the medisave account, special account, etc which cannot be used for the monthly expenses of the household.
Based on their calculations of the monthly household expenditure, it shows that the median income of $2,720 has been used up without accounting for the portion held in the medisave and special account.
Quoted from the manifesto, "Note that the estimates we have provided are rather conservative, that is, the expenses of many house-holds are higher. It is clear that the income is not enough for basic monthly expenses which, by the way, do not include expenditure for medical emergencies and recreation.
And there is nothing for retirement."
One of their solutions provided is to implement policies like the minimum wage.
my first question would be, "how do you determine what is a fair level of minimum wage?"
If the minimum wage is set too high, this may have the effect of driving investments away. Another effect may be that the companies may find it more cost efficient to automate their processes and reduce their reliance on manpower. What would then happen to our workers?
If the minimum wage is set too low, companies would not have the incentive to innovate / be more productive.
Next, 1 of the concerns of Singaporeans is the rising cost of living. If a minimum wage is set, what is the incentive for companies to increase the wages of the minimum wage workers? Will the minimum wage be changed every year to reflect the rising cost of living? Wouldn't this be more inefficient than allowing market forces and the merits of the workers determine their own wages?
2. Issue of foreign workers
One of the solutions provided in the manifesto was: "4. Rely less on MNCs and GLCs.
We can do this by encouraging innovation and creativity to flourish in Singapore. MNCs have a voracious appetite for cheap labour, the cheaper the better. This means that they want workers from our neighbouring countries who are willing to work for wages that Singaporeans simply cannot survive on.
By encouraging home-grown entrepreneurs, we reduce our dependence on MNCs and, in turn, our reliance on foreign workers. Not only do we upgrade our economy, we also keep our population at a realistic and sustainable level. Dismantling GLCs will also encourage local entrepreneurs to come to the fore, and add to the effort to upgrade our economy beyond one that simply relies on a cheap labour force."
The question that i would pose to them is, " how do you support this statement?"
Are they suggesting that we do not try to keep nestle, philips, barcaps, chevron, BP, Shell, etc in Singapore?
I think we have to recognise that MNCs bring with them certain standards, capabilties and technologies that are beneficial to singapore and singaporeans.
People who have worked in MNCs are highly sought after by SMEs for a reason. For their quality of manpower, for the greater exposure and standards that these people have been subjected to. You may have heard of anecdotes of people who had worked in MNCs previously being appalled by the standards in the SMEs. And the reason why positions in MNCs are highly valued by jobseekers is because of their relatively higher pay and better benefits. Can you disagree with this statement?
Next, you will also have to recognise that having MNCs in Singapore also create an ecosystem for various SMEs to grow to support these MNCs, i.e. downstream suppliers, service providers, etc.
A client just told me recently that his business has suffered as a result of one of his major client relocation's. Of course, this may support the argument of our over reliance on MNCs.
I would agree with this in terms of its impact on the economy, but not to justify the reliance on foreign workers.
3. GIC / temesak
Quoted, "In 2008, Temasek is estimated to have lost 40 percent, or an equivalent of $74 billion, of its portfolio due to exposure to the finance industry. Like Temasek, GIC saw its total portfolio (estimated to be about US$200 billion) wiped out by about 30 percent."
this has been made an election topic by practically every opposition party.
Of course, i agree that all singaporeans are very sore that their money were lost. But, to be fair, credit has to be given when due. we have taken it for granted that it is only right that our soverign wealth funds should only grow. But, all the criticisms were made with the benefit of hindsight. Seriously, at that point in time, did anyone think that lehman brothers would collapse overnight? Did anyone think that structured products promoted/sold by trustworthy financial institutions with AAA ratings given by supposed 3rd party rating agencies would be worthless? There can be a lot of argument of whether due dilligence was conducted, and as one of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world, they should have more access to information, they should have higher calibre of personnel, yada yada..the problem is, the loss was across the world, across the board and not limited to Singapore itself..are you able to beat the market?
The returns on our CPF account is 2.5% per annum which by the way is even higher than the fixed deposit rate (assuming you put $1,000,000 in FD with maybank which btw happens to offer higher interest rates than dbs, uob or ocbc, the highest interest rate u can get is 1.35% p.a.
https://sslsecure.maybank.com.sg/scripts/deposit_rate.jsp#iSAVvytd). Many may say it's lower than the inflation rate. But are average singaporeans able to get better returns through their own investments? The comparison was made against FD because of its risk free nature.
Ok, i have only brought up a few observations or if you like, issues that i do not agree with...
It does not mean that i agree or disagree with other issues.
I concede that the oppositions have made some valid points,
i.e. prices of HDB flats (how is it that the cost of public housing can become so out of reach of many young singaporeans),
minsterial pay (i agree that ministers/civil servants have to be paid high enough to ensure the integrity of our system and to keep corruption at bay. Ministers are also mortals with mouths to feed, children to bring up, parents to take care of, how do you expect them to take care of the people if they can't even take care of their own families. So i do not subscribe to the idea that minsters should be given just a token salary or even comparing them with the salary of the President of the US.
The President of the US yields great power. He can initiate a war if he wants. In economics, you learn that there is a trade off between power and wages. Further, the President of the US can write autobiographies and write books and earn royalties from them. Look at how many books Obama has came up with. With the exception of LKY (based on the book, "hard truths to keep singapore going" MM Lee has said that all the proceeds from all his book have gone to charity..i hardly think there is any reason to doubt his integrity), i highly doubt our other ministers/PM will have book deals. Maybe autobiographies when they have passed on?
However, i do believe in the maslow's hierachy. Ministers should be paid enough to ensure that their needs and family needs are met. At the rate of their salaries i highly doubt that a 1% increase (or any further increases) in their salaries will make much impact on their lives, i.e. 1% of $1,000,000 = $10,000. Come on, this is peanuts to them. Based on
http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/content/cabinet/appointments.html, there are 15 ministers in the cabinet, excluding our MM and SMs, PM and DPMs. If there is a reduction in 1% of their salaries i.e. $10,000 each, it is a saving of $$150,000per year, for each 5 term, there would be savings of $750,000 from the ministers. If taken into account the salaries of the MM, SMs, PM and DPMs, this would probably translate to savings per term of more than $1,000,000. hmmmm, maybe it's not so worthwhile to argue over $1,000,000 when the whole economy is worth billions, but they ought to take into account public sentiments too right? Not many Singaporeans get to see a million bucks in their lifetime, correct?
I am not anti-opposition.
Conversely, i think it may be good to have opposition involvement in the parliament to ensure greater check and balances.
However, i do not believe in opposing for the sake of opposing.
The opposition has to convince me with their beliefs and ideals.
At least, they have to convince me that their manifesto, their solutions are fair and not biased and just populist measures to gain support.
I believe that you have to subject yourself to the same moral standards if you are criticising someone/something else.
As regards to the co-driver theory, the opposition has painted a very rosy picture of them guiding the ruling party on the correct route and keeping them in check, but nothing has been mentioned of what happens if the driver and co-driver do not agree on a route to take and end up slapping each other. Result is still an accident.
This is the reason why i do not believe in a free wheeling democracy like the US, freedom of speech, freedom of rights. It produced a culture of individualism whereby individual rights and benefits are placed before community and collective benefits. Different parties with different agendas and ideals cannot agree on what is the best for the country and economy. They nearly went into governmental shut down right? madness. Thailand used to be regarded as a successful example of a democracy in Asia, look at it now. Philippines is also a democracy, many governments have been toppled by the "people's power", look at it now.
Next, there have been criticisms about the ruling party putting down the opposition...i feel that all these are just playing on our emotions. Politics is adversarial in nature. Do you expect the ruling party to say "welcome to my ward! Let me show you around!" Of course, the opposition have played their cards right by potraying themselves as the underdogs, the champions of the people. Ultimately, all these should not distract us from the bread and butter issues. All the talk about ideals can at best be idealistic if the basic needs of the people are not met. If we did not have a roof over our heads, if we did not have a job to feed our family, if we did not have money in our pockets, who would care whether we are democratic enough, whether there are opposition voices in parliament. We will just be voting for the party that can put bread on the table and in our stomachs.
alrights, it's 2.50am now...
i really shouldn't be so awake and this is also an insanely long post that can match geri's post.
Love
misstamchiak
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004