tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78281779070486328042024-03-13T23:59:01.687+08:00From Hri to all Thomsoners!Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-91595721619462077282013-06-07T10:38:00.000+08:002013-06-07T10:38:50.632+08:00What is Meritocracy?
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">The
US Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently gave a speech to the graduating class
at Princeton.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He shared 10 lessons,
and it was No.3 that caught my eye.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here is an excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">“3.
The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their
implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies
are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is
really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient
than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A
meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their
health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support,
encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career
opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate--these
are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative
meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those
who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest
responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and
to share their luck with others…”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">When
I was growing up, my family, like many others, was poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But like many others, we have seen our lot
improve tremendously by reason of the education and opportunities we
received.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, I always believed
strongly in the concept of "meritocracy".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except, I never thought deeply about what it
really meant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To me, it was always
about your rewards being determined by how hard you worked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, it is not that simple. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">Recently,
some have questioned whether meritocracy is truly fair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Bernanke questioned: “fair in an absolute
sense?”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we need to compare something with
something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To compare meritocracy with
a system of absolute fairness and then criticise its shortcomings does not
advance the debate because no system is absolutely fair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the moment, meritocracy is the fairest and
most efficient system we have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">But
to deal with its undesirable effects, we have to recognise its
limitations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One is what Bernanke
pointed out – that the success of an individual may have as much to do with
luck and happenstance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another, as pointed
out by President Obama in an election speech (for which he was attacked), is
that an individual’s success is not entirely the result of his own work, but
the support he receives from those around him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would not be where I am today but for
others - the great teachers I had, the Foundation which helped pay my
university fees, my mentors who taught me the practice of law, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The list is long. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">Everyone
who has succeeded has received help, and also has had some measure of
luck.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seen from this perspective, the
call for those who have done well to contribute more is a powerful one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such debates are often reduced to
discussions on taxes and redistribution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In Singapore, there is a good amount of redistribution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia; mso-fareast-font-family: Georgia;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(a)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">about 70% do not pay income
tax.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, 20% of households account
for 80% of income tax paid;</span><span lang="EN-SG"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia; mso-fareast-font-family: Georgia;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(b)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">about 85% of GST is paid by
the top 40% earning Singaporeans and foreigners; and</span><span lang="EN-SG"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia; mso-fareast-font-family: Georgia;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(c)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">middle income households will
receive $1 in Lifetime Benefits for every $0.80 in Lifetime Taxes they
pay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-SG"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">Nonetheless,
income inequality is an issue and we must do a better job of helping those who
get less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should have constructive
debates about whether there should be greater redistribution and, just as
importantly, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">how</b> we should do it so
that we continue to reward work, enterprise and risk taking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">But
the debate should not be dictated by numbers alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should be about the kind of society we
want.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should recognize that we
become a better, stronger community where there is incentive to succeed, and at
the same time, the weaker amongst us continue to have the opportunities to
forge a decent living.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span lang="EN-SG" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif";">The
problem with much debate in Singapore (and elsewhere) is that it often involves
people criticising the current, but not dealing with, or being full and frank
about, the risks and problems of the alternatives they are advocating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They make nice-sounding statements, but
avoid the difficult questions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are
not dealing with academic matters, and there are no prizes for best speaker or
the funniest put-down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Decisions we
make affect the lives and futures of real people, and we must never forget
that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-86567616134635982462013-05-25T22:04:00.005+08:002013-05-25T22:04:55.660+08:00What can we afford to lose?<div style="text-align: justify;">
A couple of weeks ago, a college friend of mine lost his teenage daughter. Cancer is not supposed to happen to someone so young. My friends and I are at the age where we are losing our parents - I lost both of mine some years ago. To lose our children is not something we even dared think about.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I attended the service the night before the funeral. At its close, my friend gave a heartfelt speech. I was struck about how positive he was. Little mention of pain and suffering. There was no blame, regrets or recriminations. He shared the good things about his daughter's life and the family's happy moments together.
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It got me thinking about how little attention we pay to the important things in our lives, and how we often forget to acknowledge the good we have. A friend of mine once remarked that when a group of Singaporeans get together, they will inevitably find something to complain about. It would appear that the love of good hawker food is not the only tie that binds. Are we really so negative in our outlook?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what is "important"? I applied a simple test for myself - what could I lose which would change my life permanently for the worse. I went through a whole list of bad events (in no particular order):</div>
<div>
</div>
- lose my job<br />
- lose my home<br />
- lose my parliamentary seat<br />
- lose my health or mobility<br />
- lose my money<br />
- lose my bicycle/car<br />
- lose my phone etc<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But all these setbacks can be overcome, and many people have done so. I realized that it really came down to just one thing:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- lose my family (including friends I consider part of my family)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nothing else is really "important". They are irreplaceable, both in substance and in my heart. If we lived our lives for our family, and they did the same for us, it is difficult to think of any obstacle that cannot be overcome.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-967397525236977462013-04-15T22:14:00.002+08:002013-04-15T22:30:41.373+08:00HDB for all Singaporeans<div style="text-align: justify;">
I read in papers that Minister Khaw is thinking about doing away with the income ceiling for new HDB flats. I am in favour of that. In fact, I have suggested the same thing in Parliament: see https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/executive-condominiums/504055682974367.</div>
<br />
<u>Why do we have income ceilings?</u><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Initially, it was thought that public housing should be for some, not all, Singaporeans. Those who could afford it should buy private housing. HDB imposed an income ceiling as a way of separating between those who could not afford to buy private housing, and those who could.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The income ceiling is simple to administer, but is a blunt tool. It does not take into account the expenses the applicant may have eg. where they have a large family, medical issues or elderly parents to support. Further, the high price of private property makes it difficult for those just above the ceiling to buy a home.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Besides, a Singaporean couple who earns more than $10k or $12K a month may still want to buy public housing because they want to be frugal or consider that HDB estates provide good value for money, have many amenities and are well-maintained. They may also enjoy the experience of living in a HDB estate - a very Singaporean experience. Why should they be denied?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some people say that Singaporeans who earn more than $12K a month should not receive subsidised housing. Others say that the additional applicants will cause a longer wait for everyone. These are legitimate concerns, but any policy will have its downsides. Never believe anyone who claims he has a perfect solution.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u>How do we balance everyone’s concerns?</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question always is which policy does the greater good and has the lesser evil.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think the greater good is to help all Singaporeans, regardless of income levels, buy affordable housing so that they can better plan for the future.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But we should not stop there. Consistent with our objective of encouraging home ownership, we must discourage speculation or the use of HDB flats as investments. We should lengthen the Minimum Occupation Period and review the rules which allow renting out of entire units. If you do not need to live in your flat, do not buy one or sell it to someone who does.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
True, the rental issue is complicated. We are at a time when demand has outstripped supply. There is also a sizeable part of our population that requires rental accommodation, and for whom buying a flat is simply not feasible. There are also many Singaporeans who derive a good income from being landlords.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One solution may be to impose some form of rent-control for HDB units to make it less attractive as an investment, but will still allow owners to rent them out. But that gives rise to other problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These are difficult questions. I am sure there are many different opinions on how we should deal with this. As always, I welcome your views.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my next post, I will deal with a disturbing aspect of subsidised rental housing that is on the rise. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-56365720441886709042013-03-13T19:47:00.001+08:002013-03-13T19:47:20.508+08:00COEs and the Ownership of CarsThe COE system was introduced over 20 years ago, but cannot shake off controversy. Never has so much been said by so many over so few pieces of paper. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most people accept the logic in restricting the number of cars on the road and the need to keep traffic moving smoothly. But no one likes to pay more. As a result, we have heard many suggestions on how to change the system, usually with a view to keeping COE prices low for some. I say “some” because there is no one suggestion that benefits everyone who wants a car. So, we have had suggestions of balloting for COEs or allocating based on need. But these suggestions are also not without difficulties, such as defining “need” or determining how one person's “need” is greater than another's. Do those with elderly parents have a greater need than those with infants? What about those who have to work odd hours, or need to move around Singapore as part of their jobs? So long as we agree that car numbers must be controlled, there will be no solution that pleases everyone. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The real question is what is the Government's role when it comes to determining who gets a car? The problem is that there has been no consistent policy when it comes to cars. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When then Minister Dr Yeo Ning Hong introduced the COE system in 1990, he said that the rationale for having categories based on engine size was to “benefit the lower and middle income owners”. In other words, there was an element of social equity in the system. That rationale appeared to be premised on the fact that back in the 1990s, luxury car makers generally produced cars with larger engine capacities. But this has not been the case for some time. European emission standards and the introduction of forced-induction techniques (turbocharging / supercharging) has seen luxury car makers move into the small-car market. So, today, luxury car makers dominate the small car category as well. Lower and middle income owners no longer benefit. The original purpose of engine categories no longer applies. So, why do we maintain this system? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The latest changes to the ARF reaffirm the principle of social equity, making those who purchase large, luxury cars pay more. That is the intention, but what is the likely consequence? It may mean driving more people to the small car market, which will push up COE prices for that segment. And the latest MAS curbs on car loans will make it difficult for low and middle income persons to own cars in any event. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So is there a principle that governs car ownership? I don’t see any. I think we get into these difficulties because we try to fit different and sometimes conflicting principles of free market, social equity and financial prudence. It does not work, raises expectations and ends up frustrating many. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I therefore ask the Minister to review the system and the principles of COE allocation. It’s time to pull the handbrake on the current COE system, and send it back to the workshop for a complete overhaul. First, let us have simple and clear objectives which most, if not all, can agree to. Since we cannot please everyone, I suggest that instead of focusing on who gets a COE, we should look at what kind of cars we want to have on the roads. What kind of car exacts less cost on the rest of us, and benefits everyone more? The answer is simple: those which harm our environment the least.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Car should simply be categorized by their emissions, or other environmental factors. The Europeans have done this well. They are car manufacturers. Over time, they have enforced higher emission and other standards for their cars. The result is that European car manufacturers have had to step up their game, and today, most Europeans buy cars which are well engineered, cleaner and more fuel efficient, compared to say, American cars. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We do not manufacture cars, but with the COE system, we can effect similar change. The engine capacity of cars we buy should not matter. Neither should it matter if they are diesel, petrol, LPG or hybrid. Such cars occupy the same space and contribute to congestion. But it will make a difference if we promote cleaner, more fuel efficient cars. Therefore, substantially more COEs should be allocated to those which are environmentally friendlier, and a smaller number for “dirtier” cars. This will set a clear and defensible policy, and a send a strong message about what we value. It will also indirectly help those who can only afford to purchase smaller and cheaper cars as these tend to have lower emissions and be more fuel efficient. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My second point is about the timing of changes to policies. We have a habit of springing them suddenly on people, such as the recent curbs on car loans, and property cooling measures. This makes it difficult for individuals and businesses to plan, and where plans are affected, it causes frustration and resentment. Why can we not give reasonable warning so that everyone can plan and make informed choices?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I can predict the response - if we had given 6 months’ notice before imposing the loan curbs, everyone will rush to purchase a car in those 6 months. Yes they may, but so what? Those who rush in will know others will do so as well, and they should be prepared to pay more. Others can choose to wait the market out, in the expectation that prices will fall. For the rest of us, there will still be the same number of cars on the road. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The concern is for those who may over-extend their finances. That argument is over-stated. First, it will affect only a small group of car buyers because only so many cars can be purchased in that period. Second, even when there were no loan curbs, there were no significant numbers of defaults for car loans. Thirdly, and more fundamentally, Government should a step back and let people make their own financial decisions, even if it turns out to be a bad one. We cannot protect Singaporeans from every poor personal decision, and even if we could, we should not. Worse still, by acting without warning, the Government has, in the name of protecting some Singaporeans, affected others. It has caused frustration among individuals and companies planning to buy a car and who could well have afforded to service a larger loan, and businesses selling or holding stocks of cars. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We should give everyone more time to understand the new rules and their implications, work out their options and make considered and informed decisions. Such moves by the Government have real consequences on the present and the future plans of Singaporeans. The least we can do is signal early before changing lanes.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-86015505382089965942013-03-09T22:52:00.004+08:002013-03-09T22:52:40.244+08:00Executive Condominiums<div style="text-align: justify;">
The key to assessing the success of any policy is to distinguish the will from the deed. In other words, do not look at what the intention behind the policy is, but what its effect is. Nowhere is that more relevant than in public housing. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As the salaries of Singaporeans, especially professionals, rise, and as they marry later, a good number of couples will have combined salaries which will disqualify them from buying a new HDB flat. But at the same time, they find private properties out of reach. Executive Condominiums are intended to help this growing group. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is that ECs are also an attractive financial proposition. Minister Khaw recently described the scheme as offering residents a Lexus for the price of a Corolla . That is a good analogy. But because it is such a good deal, those who could otherwise have afforded to purchase private property, are buying ECs as well. Some who cannot afford it are doing it with the help of parents or others. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The critical question therefore is whether ECs are only being sold to the class of people they are intended to benefit. The selling prices of ECs suggest that they are not. This is best illustrated by the recent sale of $2m EC penthouses. And even for more regular-sized units, prices have risen in tandem with the private property market. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You cannot blame Singaporeans for taking advantage of a good deal. Neither can you blame developers for high prices – they bid competitively for the land, they take the risk and therefore, they want to maximize their profits. Developers are not the least bit concerned that their units may not be affordable to couples who earn up to $12k a month, because that is not their only pool of buyers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This also means that tax payer’s monies are effectively being used to subsidise the purchase of ECs for those who do not need a subsidy, and no doubt in some cases, to make a profit. Subsidies should be used to help Singaporeans buy homes, not make windfalls. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Ministry has implemented measures to deal with some undesirable aspects, such as capping the size of EC units. However, that does not address the problem I have highlighted. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I accept that it would be difficult for MND to investigate the financial backgrounds of purchasers to assess if they belong to the class of Singaporeans we are trying to help. But if we cannot ensure that the objectives of the EC policy can be met, perhaps we should reconsider having the policy in the first place.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is this concept of hybrid housing – public in some respects, private in others, and in the case of ECs, public evolving to private. Again, I understand the intention behind these policies to give Singaporeans more choices, and better quality of housing if they can afford it. But what is the result? In my division, there is a running battle between the residents and the developers of The Peak (DBSS) over quality issues. One of the residents’ complaints is that HDB is not more active in resolving matters. I can understand why HDB is not – because the contractual relationship is between the purchaser and the private developer, and HDB has limited powers to intervene. But as far as the purchasers are concerned, they bought these flats under HDB rules and restrictions, and deserve more help by the HDB. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The intention of DBSS was to provide Singaporeans with better quality of flats. What is the result? They pay high prices for flats, but end up angry and disillusioned; unhappy with their homes. They end up blaming those who were trying to help them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I therefore urge the MND to government to focus on providing good quality public housing for the masses – for the benefit of most, Singaporeans. MND can offer a suite of choices with different sizes and amenities, but retain ownership of the process and the legal relationship with the purchaser. Let us keep separate private and public housing, and not have one morph into the other, so that everyone functions and benefits at the same level. Those who aspire something different should look to the private market. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the same time, Singaporean couples who earn more than $10,000/mth should also have the option of public housing. To prescribe salary limits is too blunt a tool, as different people have different circumstances. Some couples have to take care of children and up to four elderly parents. There are medical and other costs to consider. Committing themselves to a large loan forces both to continue working, and does not allow the option of one of them stopping work or working part-time to spend more time with family. It also assumes that both will be able to keep their jobs for the tenure of the loan, which may not happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I therefore repeat the call I made some years ago to lift the salary limits for public housing, or at least set the upper limit at a much higher level. Since then, MND has raised it from $8,000 to $10,000. I urge it to go much further. Give more Singaporeans the choice of going public. Some may prefer to keep their expenses low. And at the same time, prescribe conditions which discourage gaming of the system. We have introduced measures preventing owners of private properties from purchasing HDB flats. The rule should work both ways. Any person who decides to purchase and live in public housing to take advantage of subsidies, should not at the same time complain that he is being shut out of the private market. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-76665937607523338562013-03-07T00:12:00.002+08:002013-03-07T00:13:23.945+08:00Budget Speech<div style="text-align: justify;">
During the Budget Debates in Parliament today, I gave a speech on NS and the thorny issue of integrating our citizens, new and old, PRs and foreigners in our society. My speech stemmed from my proposal for a national defence tax which I mooted online a few weeks ago. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I shared with the House what I learnt from you. Ultimately, as I said, something needs to be done about the current situation. In my speech, I outlined some measures that the government could adopt: promoting integration, sharpening distinctions, introducing compulsory service for PRs and dealing robustly and effectively with those who seek to undermine our efforts and values. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I concluded my speech with a personal anecdote about how proud I felt to be a Singaporean when my friends and I were recognized in Thailand as Singaporeans because of the racial diversity of our group. Somehow, where integration is concerned, we have lost our way. However, we should not shy away from this topic. It is time for the Government to take the lead on the national debate on integration, and to do so boldly. </div>
<br />
Here is the full text of my speech.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>Together </u></strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am part of the post-65 generation of Singaporeans, born here after independence. I served my national service in the infantry. I carried my M16, wore my No. 4 and ate what the SAF optimistically called “combat rations”. I spent time in the soil of the jungles of Singapore and Taiwan with other Singaporean males, who have become my friends.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I view my NS with pride, just as I am sure many Singaporeans do. NS is a common touchstone for us. We will never do anything else quite like it for the rest of our lives. Even decades later, we talk about it with friends. It brands us as Singaporeans. When people talk about a “Singaporean core”, NS is one of the ingredients that lie at the heart of it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last month, I wrote a series of posts on my facebook page suggesting that we impose a national defence tax on non-citizens as a way of sharpening distinctions between citizens and non-citizen residents, and using the proceeds to benefit our NS men. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was happy that my posts sparked a lively debate. It brought into focus the larger issue of whether Singaporeans, new citizens, PRs and foreigners are successfully integrating in our society, and the implications for us if they do not. The problem is that we have largely dealt with these issues on a superficial level.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>What I Learnt from Singaporeans</u></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would like to share with this House some things I have been told online and in person in the course of the debate. I believe they represent the views of a good number of Singaporeans. They raise serious issues which I hope the Government will look into. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, many Singaporeans recognise and appreciate the contributions of new citizens, PRs and foreigners. They have no desire to discriminate against them. They acknowledge that this country would not be the success that it is without their contributions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, many want to see new citizens and PRs genuinely integrate better with Singaporeans and be part of our society. We want them to demonstrate that they regard this land as their home; that they believe in our cause; and that they too have a stake in Singapore’s future. What grates most on our nerves is the thought of those who seek the privilege of citizenship and permanent residency do so purely out of convenience or economic gain, and that they will abandon us at the slightest risk or sign of trouble. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That is why National Service is such an emotional topic. Doing National Service, or giving an undertaking that your son will do it, is a tangible demonstration of that commitment. Many talk about shedding blood, sweat and tears. But it means more than that. It forges a common bond which is unique to us, and in some ways, helps define who we are. There is also a real financial sacrifice. For men from poorer Singaporean households, it means two years of earning a nominal allowance when they could have joined the workforce and helped supplement the family income. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So it disturbs us when we perceive others avoiding NS by playing fast and loose with the rules, and taking easy rides in the system. That is the true cheapening of National Service. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, most demand that those liable to do NS must perform their duty. It is not enough that NS-dodgers pay a penalty and are barred from returning to Singapore. We rather that they stay and serve with us. But we must accept the reality that some PRs will arrange for their sons to leave when they reach a certain age. Not a single person who has posted or given their views believes that the current sanctions against this are adequate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That was why I proposed the National Defence Duty - as a practical response to a practical problem. We cannot force people to remain in Singapore who do not want to stay here. But we can make it so costly that they would think twice, three times before taking PR status or arranging for their child to dodge NS. As with all proposals, some liked it; some criticised it; some felt it did not go far enough. Some even accused me of proposing that PRs who were liable for NS be allowed to pay their way out of their obligation. Of course, I never made any such suggestion. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But one thing most appeared to agree on: something needs to be done. The status quo will not do.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>An Action Plan</u></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This issue should be tackled as part of a national effort to promote integration. We can and need to do a number of things. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, at a macro level, we need to explain better the importance of keeping Singapore an open society with an open economy. “Singaporeans first” does not and cannot mean “Singaporeans regardless”. These issues are complicated, and frankly, we do not do a good job explaining things. This is sad because we have such a compelling story to tell. Neither will the approach that people should trust us because we know what we are doing. We cannot take the people’s trust for granted. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, we need to convince Singaporeans that Singaporeans remain central to Singapore and its future. This year’s Budget takes a step in that direction. More is being done for members of our Singapore family who are in need of more help – increasing incomes for low wage workers; securing their children a better education; helping the elderly age with more dignity. More is being done to share the prosperity that Singapore has achieved. We become a better, stronger society when the lot of all Singaporeans are improved. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, while foreigners and PRs are important, we must also demonstrate that there are privileges in being a citizen. We have thus far largely dealt with this on a piece-meal basis, with different Ministries announcing changes or measures at different times, whether it is securing places in primary schools, differentiating medical fees or property ownership. We should have a comprehensive review of all these measures and look at how we can make changes on a fair and principled basis. Some have said that such a move would be xenophobic. By that definition, any privilege given to a citizen is xenophobic. Of course, it is not. It is legitimate for a government to draw distinctions between its citizens and non-citizens. In any case, I firmly believe most Singaporeans are not xenophobic. But they are genuinely unhappy because of perceived unfairness of treatment. We in this House need to address this squarely and rationally. If we ignore this, we will only give cause and strength to the less rational voices.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fourthly, we should review our approach to granting citizenship and Permanent Residency. It has to be more than satisfying criteria and completing forms. I have a constituent who is Singapore citizen. His wife, a Malaysian, gave birth to their son in Malaysia, and he became a Malaysian citizen. The boy is now about 20 years old, not well educated but hard working and wants to improve himself. He has been working as a cook in Singapore for about 2 years on a work permit. The boy wants to live in Singapore with his father, become a citizen and do NS. His application for PR has been rejected several times. Why? Is it because of his lack of education? But he is the son of a Singaporean, who wants to live with his father and do NS, and does a job which Singaporeans apparently shun. Why do we regard him as less qualified to be here compared to sons of PRs, who may or may not choose to stay and do NS when they come of age? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fifthly, we should have new citizens and PRs perform some form of compulsory service. If NS is not suitable by reason of age or other circumstances, other forms should be introduced. This can be for short periods annually, much like how Singaporean men do reservist training. The point is not to discourage foreigners from sinking their roots here, but to emphasise that they now have a stake in this country as well. One commenter on my facebook page mooted the idea of having them serve in the Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC). It is worth exploring. There are even practical benefits as it helps with the current manpower shortage in the Home Team. In fact, there are currently 52 PRs serving in the VSC. At a recent award and appreciation ceremony, I met one of them, Cpl (V) Yanase Yoshitaka, a Japanese who has lived here for 12 years. He was proud to serve in the VSC, and told me that he wanted to become a Singaporean. Others can do the same. Give them a chance. They may surprise us.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, we need to have a more robust and effective response to those who undermine our efforts to integrate. I have spoken about PRs who send their sons away to avoid NS. We also need to deal with the allegation that some employers favour hiring foreigners at the expense of Singaporeans, or retrench Singaporeans before releasing their foreign staff. The story is always different depending on who you speak to – employers who say they cannot find Singaporeans despite their best attempts or that Singaporeans are unrealistic about pay and benefits; Singaporean employees who say they have been discriminated against because their employers want to hire cheaper foreigners or help their fellow nationals. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know of cases where my constituents have gone to the CDC looking for jobs, only to be told that nothing was available, or to be sent on interviews which proved a waste of time. This should not be happening in our tight job market. What is the real problem? Let’s get to the bottom of it and show where the truth lies. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some have mooted rules or laws to compel employers to prove that they cannot find Singaporeans before they are allowed to bring in a foreigner. We should find simple ways of doing this. The CDCs and NTUC can help by offering a comprehensive job matching service, not just for low income workers, but PMETs as well. To make sure that efforts are sincere, we can have them certify that job matching has failed before an employer can make an application for a foreign worker. In this regard, an employer who has proven that he is unable to secure a Singaporean for a reasonable wage should be given some leeway to bring in foreign workers. For some industries, you can only improve productivity so far, and workers are needed to keep the business going. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it cannot all be one way. Singaporeans must also bear responsibility for themselves. Singaporeans who unreasonably refuse to take up jobs or to improve themselves should not expect to keep getting support from others, whether through the Budget or otherwise. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>One Day in Bangkok</u></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Integration is a long and complex journey. It was something that Singapore did very well. In one of my first speeches after becoming an MP, I told of an encounter which made that clear to me. In 1991, shortly after my final university exams, I undertook a backpacking trip with some of my friends around Asia. On a hot day in Bangkok, my two Chinese friends and I walked towards a street vendor selling drinks. Before we could say a word, he looked at us and said “Singapore”. We asked him how he knew. He said: “Different colour, walk together; must be Singapore.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We laughed at the incident, but you know, I have never felt prouder being a Singaporean. I hope always to feel that way. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Conclusion</u></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We have lost our way somewhat on integration. It is not too late to get back on the right road. The Government must lead the national debate on immigration and integration. It should come up with a comprehensive package which Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners can accept as sound, compulsory community service, monetary and non-monetary measures, carrots and sticks. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We should not avoid this sensitive topic, but embrace it as part of the evolution of our young country. It is a fallacy to think that a country can stand still, frozen in time, and never change. Change is inevitable, and change can be a good thing, provided we manage this process fairly and rationally, involve Singaporeans, and most importantly, act in the interests of Singapore. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are very different from the Singapore of the 1970s and we will be a different Singapore in 2030. Nonetheless, we must remain a multi-racial, multi-religious society defined by values embodied in our pledge of unity, democracy and equality to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for all. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-39205639836995265022013-02-26T22:57:00.002+08:002013-02-26T23:01:27.667+08:00Letter published in the Straits Times on 25 Feb, in response to its editorial on Saturday<div style="text-align: justify;">
Below is my letter published in the ST on 25 Feb, in response to its editorial on Saturday:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The editorial "NS Tax would cheapen a solemn duty" (ST 23 February) says all the right things, but avoids the difficult issues.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The editorial agrees with me that distinctions between Singaporeans and foreigners "can be sharpened", but warns against the danger "of going too far". But what is "too far"? The editorial also acknowledges the problem I highlighted of PRs skipping their NS obligations, and states that "measures ... can be tightened". Again, the crucial question is how?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Motherhood statements are fine, but the devil, as always, is in the details.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is also wrong to label proposals to sharpen the distinction "xenophobic", because that assumes that current policies are already fair and incapable of rational change. We should not resist reviewing and changing existing policies, provided such changes are logical and principled, and in the interests of Singapore.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My proposal of a defence tax is a specific proposal. It does not put a price on NS obligations. NS obligations are important and must be enforced by law and punishment if necessary. But what about those who escape their NS obligations or who have no such obligations? They benefit from others doing NS. They should contribute too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Taxation is not a unique solution. A Swiss citizen who is liable to perform military service, but is unable or fails to complete his obligation must pay an exemption tax. It is a practical response to a practical problem. It is not seen as cheapening national service. My proposal does not go so far as the Swiss. I do not agree that anyone should be able to avoid NS obligations by making payment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
It is easy to use a loaded word such as "cheapen" when talking about taxes. But it is unfair. If we offer tax breaks for families to have kids, are we "cheapening" children? And did the ST label the $9000 grant to NSmen announced by the Prime Minister as cheapening NS? The fact is that taxation is a legitimate means of distributing benefits and burdens. All I am suggesting is to have foreigners and PRs share the burden that our NSmen already shoulder."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
PS: The Budget just delivered by DPM Tharman evidences a significant shift in our taxation policy. Those who are wealthy will pay more in taxes to help those who are less well off. Taxation has long been used as a tool to effect social change, and we are likely to see more of such changes in the future.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-24716825768064555432013-02-15T20:51:00.002+08:002013-02-15T20:51:34.200+08:00National Defence Duty – A Brief Rebuttal<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There were two main criticisms of my proposal: it is xenophobic, and it “cheapens” National Service placing a monetary value to its performance. Let me briefly deal with them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em><strong>Xenophobia</strong></em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some label the proposal xenophobic because it is “populist” and “pandering”, and pits Singaporeans against others. The problem with this argument is that it makes the fundamental assumption that the situation we have now is already equitable and therefore any change can only be for populist reasons. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think many will disagree with that. Indeed, the responses that have been posted debunk any suggestion of xenophobia – see my post “<strong>National Defence Duty – A Consolidation</strong>”. Most want a re-balancing, but in a principled way that will enable better integration and that those who come to Singapore simply for economic reasons should acknowledge that they are able to do so because of others who do National Service. I do not see that as being xenophobic. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question is therefore simple: is the current situation equitable? If yes, we leave things be. If not, how can we make it fairer? And to answer this question, we need to have practical and effective solutions, otherwise the issue will not be resolved.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><em>Money</em></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Having spent 2.5 active and many reservist years in the infantry myself, the last thing I want to do is to “cheapen” National Service. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Taxing foreigners to make up for their ineligibility to serve NS does not equate to putting a value on NS. Neither does giving monetary rewards. But we do that anyway, such as giving reservists a modest tax break every year. We all know it is symbolic and no one argues that it puts a value to, or cheapens, reservist duties. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, placing an economic value on National Service is not a new concept. As one commenter pointed out, in Switzerland, any person who does not fulfil his military service obligation must pay an exemption tax of 3% on his taxable income each year. It is not about valuing the service or buying your way out. It is about giving recognition to those who do their duty, and tax breaks, benefits and penalties are often used as a tool to facilitate that. We also do it for other causes too, like parent relief for our income tax. No one argues that values or cheapens the obligation of looking after loved ones. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I had in my first post talked about the real and significant economic cost which Singaporean men pay when they perform National Service. Most of us served because we believed in the cause, and we do not begrudge that cost. That is however, a separate issue from getting those who do not perform National Service, but benefit from it, to contribute like the rest of us, albeit in a different way. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I said in my first post, it is not a perfect solution. But it will be difficult to find a practical and effective solution with universal appeal, as the many different views I have received amply demonstrate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks for reading.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-10654081950210994072013-02-15T20:49:00.003+08:002013-02-15T20:49:51.209+08:00National Defence Duty – A Consolidation<div style="text-align: justify;">
My suggestion of a national defence duty has sparked a lively debate. I would like to thank you for the many comments and suggestions you have posted. There has certainly been a wide spectrum of views. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notably, very few have suggested leaving things as they are. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My takeaway so far is that while most believe the system can and should be made more equitable, it is also important that we improve our efforts to integrate Singaporeans (new and old) and non-Singaporeans. As part of that integration, we would like to see new citizens and PRs demonstrate that they do not regard Singapore simply as an economic opportunity to be exploited. That is why National Service touches a raw nerve – it is the clearest marker we have of loyalty and commitment. It therefore rankles when we perceive others as having an easy way out. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is clear that most want some form of re-balancing. The issue is what form that should take - whether monetary, compulsory service or a combination of both. The sense I get from the responses is that it should be different for different groups: more emphasis on compulsory service for PRs and new citizens, and more emphasis on monetary for foreigners (excluding low wage foreign workers).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There has been confusion of terms – with some equating “foreigners” with “new citizens”, and applying them inter-changeably. By “foreigner”, I mean those who are here temporarily, on an employment pass or work permit etc. I think it is impractical to insist that such a person does some form of compulsory service. They are, by definition, here to exploit economic opportunities. So, any contribution they make should likewise be financial.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is the question of PRs (or their sons) who are liable for NS, but avoid it by leaving the country before enlistment age. While we would prefer them to stay and do National Service, we cannot stop them from leaving. If we are prepared to accept this, we need not do anything. If we are not, we should have a practical and effective response. That is why I had suggested imposing the duty/tax, as this imposes a significant cost on that decision to leave. Unfortunately, some have misrepresented this as a way to allow PRs to pay off their obligation. The proposal keeps the existing sanctions and imposes additional financial measures so that they and their parents think harder before taking that step. Some have asked “why always talk money?” – but what are the practical alternatives? One is to forfeit the parents' PR status. That is a serious step which requires more consideration. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, there are some who say that if the aim of the proposal is to give more benefits to NSmen, can’t the Government simply do that now? That does not address the issue of equalization. In any event, the point is not inconsistent. Giving more benefits means all of us paying more, which is fine. The question is whether those who do not sacrifice their time should be asked to contribute more financially. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ultimately, it is for Singaporeans to collectively decide what works best, and it is clear that no single proposal will be immune from criticism or disagreement. I hope to hear more of your thoughts. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I share below a small sample of the responses:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Dil Preet</u></strong>: The suggestion by mr ashok kumar about reducing or eliminating income tax for parents of singaporean males sounds better. Or maybe for NS males who enter the workforce, no income tax for first couple of years of work or reduced fee rates in local unis should they go to uni after ns? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Ed Chan:</u></strong> Here are some suggestions of penalties that would really hurt under current context,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- No access to national universities or to enterprises set up or jointly set up by local national universities, only allow to access private educators. And even then, NSmen get priority. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Families with children who escape NS should be required by law to take up private property and not be eligible to stay in HDBs, DBSS and ECs even under the private market. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Families with children who escape NS are ineligible to any tax benefits or business subsidies or future handouts from the government. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Families with children who escape NS shall pay higher fees for all government procedures and applications</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Companies who employ those who escape NS by paying this NS tax must ensure that all NSmen applicants are hired first or face stiff penalties and potential loss of business license.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Khoo LW:</u></strong> Also cancel long term visit pass for parents/parents inlaws of FT/PR. It should only be for spouse and kids.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Nick Lauw:</u></strong> When someone makes the choice to become a PR here, he should implicitly agree to bear the physical burden of national defence. I think that a form of physical national service should be implemented for new PRs (not just their children). Surely even PRs can contribute for 2 weeks a year while they are below 40 to things like civil defence or acting as volunteer police officers. Prior to doing so, they can undergo a basic course, which can last 1 or 2 months that can form part of their obligations. If that is deemed too onerous, perhaps PRs can spend the 2 weeks helping out at charities or the Peoples Association</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Serene Chew:</u></strong> Make them do a compulsory no. of hours of community service instead. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1) This is more meaningful than money. This will let go some of the anger from the locals towards new immigrants. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2) It will also let the new immigrants understand and know more of our local cultures and help in their integration. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3) Also, doing community service is not sexist. By asking PRs to do NS you are targeting only the males. Why should the female PRs get away with it without doing anything to contribute to the country?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><strong>Randy Chan:</strong></u> Having a combination of tax & service (1 yr min) for PRs might bring better balance. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Dexter Boo:</u></strong> Sir, I would like to suggest that PR will pay this tax plus they will do a modified term of NS, in terms of weapon handling and range shooting be whether its from SPF/SAF. They must also serve community service like 1) additional watch group for the neighbourhood spp. 2) A quota to be completed by reporting defects in the ward they are staying weekly/monthly (eg - report of lost drainage cover, building defects etc) and areas the TC needs to touch up, may it be in terms of cleaning or landscaping. 3) attend a weekly/forthnightly/monthly meeting organise by cc to be introduced to our singapore culture and a chance for them to show us their culture. Once the participant had completed his terms of duty(2 years or more) the amount of money he paid for this tax will be returned to him, or if he had a son a certain part of money will be retained and this amount of money will be confiscated if his son escaped from NS. If he is not married but had serve the service term, the money will be returned to him but on the birth of his son, the tax will commence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Peter J Edwards:</u></strong> I think you do not appreciate just how unpredictable and xenophobic proposals like this make Singapore appear to Foreigners, especially those who have been in Singapore a long time. This gradual but ever increasing lack of predictability and hostility to foreigners is one of the reasons I left the Singapore Government service to pursue opportunities in the much less hostile, more predictable and more welcoming country immediately north. New policy changes affecting foreigners every year doesn't make them become citizens , it makes those with the talent and skills to work elsewhere pick up and leave, because such changes can have a critical impact on costs that Singaporean employers fail to appreciate. Suggestions like this only increase foreigners concerns about new tax or restriction will be passed on this year. When will the PAP learn that there is a difference between being pro singaporean and anti foreigner. Immigrants like stability , and choose singapore because of that stability, however with every passing year that stability is being eroded by populist xenophobic policies like this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Chew Jing Wei:</u></strong> Implement this and Singapore might just lose its status as a tax haven in the eyes of the USA and significantly reduce its attractiveness to expats, investors and overseas students.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I suggest Nair to seriously consider the root cause of such discontentment - widespread xenophobia - rather than simply tackling one of its many symptoms. Treating this fear would be unpopular and choppy, but is essential for Singapore to ride the waves of globalisation a la New York and London. Singapore must not fear stepping out of its comfort zone.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-31648115146635579892013-02-13T23:05:00.000+08:002013-02-13T23:05:43.807+08:00National Defence Duty (2)<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks to all who have responded.<br /><br />I thought it might be useful at this stage to clarify a couple of things.<br /><br />One is the assertion that my proposal enables rich PRs to avoid NS. It does no such thing. All those who are obligated to do NS must do NS. That would include sons of PRs. The question is what happens if their parents send them away before they reach enlistment age? This does happen. The proposal provides an additional disincentive against them taking that way out. It does not encourage them to do so.<br /><br />Some have also confused new citizens with foreigners. There is merit in the argument that new citizens should serve some form of National Service, which can be modified depending on circumstances. My proposal however, deals with foreigners, not new citizens. There is no question of foreigners buying their way out of NS, as they are not liable in the first place.<br /><br />Some have said that it would be wrong to put a price on serving National Service. That misreads the intent and substance of the proposal. I will deal with this in detail at a later date.<br /><br />What is important is whether we think the current situation is acceptable, and if not, how it can be improved. I accept that some will not like my proposal. If so, I would like your views on what we can do better.<br /><br />Please keep the comments coming.<br /><br />Thanks</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-33311371545284921922013-02-13T00:43:00.003+08:002013-02-13T00:44:48.502+08:00Time For A National Defence Duty<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my speech in the White Paper debate, I said that one of the things we need to do going forward is to create sharper distinctions between Singaporeans and others who live or do business here. I had not mentioned any specific proposals as I did not want them lost in the wider debate. I offer one now.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<strong>The National Defence Duty</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I propose levying a National Defence Duty on PRs and foreigners living in Singapore. I should make clear that it is not my intention to add to any xenophobic hysteria. As I will explain, my proposal addresses a current imbalance. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We know the sacrifice all Singaporean males make, spending two years of their lives doing National Service, and doing reservist training for several years after that. It is a sacrifice not just of blood, sweat and tears. There is also a significant economic cost we pay - two years of our lives, at the time when we are about the join the work-force or enter university; perpetually two years behind our female peers in terms of pay, experience and job opportunities; two years behind in the property ladder and therefore having to pay higher prices; less attractive to employers because of reservist commitments. This has more pronounced disadvantages for poorer families. At the time when their sons reach a working age and ready to contribute to the families' finances, they spend two years earning a modest allowance. They cannot even work part-time to supplement the family income.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I believe the majority of us accept this as something we must do for the good of Singapore. And having a strong armed forces, with a significant reserve force, has no doubt contributed to the security and growth of Singapore. The same is true of having strong police and civil defence forces.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The thing is everyone living in Singapore benefits from this sacrifice - including PRs and foreigners. We cannot expect equal treatment as it is unrealistic and unworkable to have foreigners do National Service. And while we can impose National Service obligations on PRs, there is practically little we can do if they leave Singapore before enlistment, never to return.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My proposal is therefore a simple one. All PRs and foreigners must pay additional income and property tax to be called a National Defence Duty. In short, we do duty, they pay a duty. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The rationale is simple - since PRs and foreigners cannot contribute manpower to our SAF and Home Team, they make a financial contribution to the protection and preservation of their lives, families, jobs, investments and properties.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Those who have sons who are liable for NS will be exempted. Those who send their sons away before enlistment will have to pay back- taxes and penalties, over and above the bond which is forfeited. Likewise, those who give up their PR status. This should take care of what I think is a current anomaly. When PR parents send their sons away before enlistment, it is the son who is penalized in terms of not being able to return. I think this is too small a price to pay. More importantly, the decision would have been made by the parents. They should pay a cost for that decision. Paying back-taxes and penalties is a fair solution. The PR parents may of course decide to leave Singapore for good without paying. But such a move would be a real cost to them as well as that would mean ending their careers or businesses here. They are not likely to take that decision lightly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<strong>The National Service Trust</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the revenue earned should not simply go the general state coffers. There should be a real and direct benefit to National Servicemen. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I therefore propose that the revenue earned be placed in a National Service Trust. The trust funds can be used to supplement the allowance of NSFs from poor families. It should compensate NS men who have been injured in the line of duty. It can even provide an income for a period of time to families of NS men who have been killed. That will never compensate for their loss, but it may make a real and tangible difference to families who have been deprived of their father's or son's contributions. It will also give confidence to our NS men that should anything happen to them in their training, their families will be taken care of. If there are sufficient funds, we can even offer a grant to NS men towards their first homes, and address the inequity I spoke of earlier of NS men entering the market later than their peers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Will this proposal cause PRs and foreigners to flee our shores? I doubt it. Even with an increase, our tax rates will still be among the lowest of developed countries, and we will still be one of the more attractive places to live and work in. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Taxation is not a fool-proof way of addressing this thorny issue, but at the very least, it ensures that everyone contributes to the defence and security of Singapore. Beside, I believe that if foreigners and PRs see that their financial contributions directly benefit NS men, they will view the duty as less of a penalty, and more of an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution towards the security they enjoy thanks to our NS men. A chance to do their duty, as it were. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I intend to raise this proposal in the coming Budget debates. I would be grateful for your views, and any suggestions you may have to improve it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Thanks for reading. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-20317477656636816142013-02-07T21:38:00.004+08:002013-02-07T21:38:50.647+08:00A Matter of Trust (2)<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks to everyone who posted your views. Not surprisingly, views are divided. It shows that different people are concerned about different issues and have different perspectives. That is only natural as we are dealing with issues concerning our future. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some have said that I was too aggressive with the Workers’ Party (WP). There is a certain amount of cut and thrust in Parliamentary debates, but anyone viewing it live will know that all speeches (both from ruling and opposition parties) are delivered in a measured way. But views have to be scrutinised, tested and challenged, so that their full implications will be understood. That is what the debate is for.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We now know that the WP’s proposal of freezing foreign worker numbers will in effect create haves and have-nots. If you have a home, good; if you do not, you wait longer to get your house. If you have a job, great (provided your employer does not fold or send his business elsewhere); if you are graduating or joining the work force, you may have to wait or leave Singapore to get one. If you have a maid, hold on to her; if you are new parents, or have elderly parents, and need someone to help you, too bad as no additional maids will be allowed in. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If your business folds, and you have to lay-off your Singaporean employees, tough, but the Government should think of a solution to help you. And we all have to wait much longer for more trains, buses, hospitals and other public services.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you put aside all the rhetoric, this is really what it amounts to. The WP then glosses over the ill effects of its proposal by arguing that only businesses will be hurt, and Singaporeans will not. Everyone can see how absurd that is. The simple truth is that the WP is advocating a figure of 5.8m, not because there is any logical basis, but because it sounds better. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing the Government keeps getting blasted for is that it appears to rule with its head and not its heart. That is a valid point. But that does not mean it should completely swing the other way. I think both head and heart are equally important, and must feature in every policy decision. So while we should formulate policies with the aim of helping Singaporeans (heart), there must be logic to that policy and its implementation so that Singaporeans are in fact helped (head). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Government has much to do to re-capture the hearts of Singaporeans. The best way to do that is for Singaporeans to feel that the Government’s plans and initiatives have meaningfully improved their lives and give them confidence for the future. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-74685997884859024472013-02-06T20:51:00.000+08:002013-02-06T20:53:15.060+08:00White Paper – A Matter of Trust<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hi all,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I set out below the speech I delivered in Parliament this evening on the White Paper. I look forward to receiving your views.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial fiasco, the editor of Newsweek International, observed that the crisis had demonstrated one thing: that democracy has a genetic defect – it emphasises the current, usually at the expense of the future. Intuitively, we all recognise this. So while politicians often speak eloquently about promises of the future, they know that what really matters is that they deliver on the real and tangible problems of the present. Policies are often driven by this reality. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Singapore is not immune to this genetic defect. It would be foolish to think we are different. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
However, when we were a young nation, we showed strong resistance to it. When former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew said that the Government was going to transform Singapore from a swamp to a gleaming metropolis, not many believed it could be done. The key was that Singaporeans allowed the Government time and space to embark on its vision, to effect medium and long term strategies – on the economy, housing, transport, health. Singaporeans took a leap of faith with the Government, and were rewarded for doing so.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Did some Singaporeans suffer as a result of these policies? Some clearly did. Take land. In order to build housing and hospitals, roads and rail network, industries, the government acquired property from Singaporeans. This included farms and business premises. Some were dislocated, lost their homes, their inheritance, even their livelihoods. I have some residents who still complain bitterly about this difficult time in their lives. We can all understand why they are unhappy. But is there any doubt that these measures were necessary and have benefitted the vast majority of Singaporeans? Few today would argue against it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Today, we are the beneficiaries of these long term policies, of this long term strategic thinking and of the hard work of the previous generation, many of whom are no longer around to enjoy its fruits. But it is also common for people to view the past with rose-tinted glasses. Despite the current and legitimate unhappiness about over-crowding, high property prices and such, we are today far better off than our parents’ generation. All the objective figures – education, home ownership, employment, wealth and household income, quality of life, health and longevity – prove that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
But today, we are also an older society – less resistant to genetic defects. The current has become as important, if not more so, than the future. The White Paper is very much about the future. But its acceptance by Singaporeans will depend very much on how we deal with today’s problems. That will determine if Singaporeans will give the Government time and space to re-shape the future, like they did before. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So to persuade Singaporeans to come on this journey, we have to do two things:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) paint a full picture of the future for Singaporeans, highlighting both the good and the bad;<br />
(b) give Singaporeans confidence that the Government will be able address the challenges of the future. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chief among these challenges are the questions of over-crowdedness and the advantages of being born a Singaporean.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some in this House and many outside have questioned the numbers and assumptions in the White Paper. They say that the Government has over-stated the problems of the elderly to working adult ratio, that we have not done enough to boost productivity and birth rates and that the elderly can retire later and work longer. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But we are all crystal ball gazing. No one wants to hit 6.9m. Every member in this House wants a stronger core of Singaporeans. Everyone supports the Government building ahead of demand. We all want the TFR measures to work so that we may have less need for foreigners. Future technology and advances in health care may well help our seniors remain active and productive longer. Other innovations and mechanisation may reduce our dependence on unskilled foreign labour. Technology can change life dramatically in the next 20 years, as it has in the last 20 years. But no one can say with any certainty what will happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The issue is therefore not 6.9m, 6.5m or who can assert a more acceptable number. Numbers will change over time as circumstances change, and assumptions are either confirmed or debunked. However, as DPM Teo said, we have reached a turning point, and we have decisions to make today about what we do about our future as we see it today. We have to take the next leap of faith. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The issue is therefore one of trust and confidence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Government has done the right thing to talk about the future, and show its vision of it. It has stuck its head up and is prepared to take the blows. As DPM Teo said, it would be far more politically convenient to do or say nothing. There are many who have written that the Government is politically naïve for doing this. But would Singaporeans be better off if the Government had kept silent? Would you trust a party that ducks difficult questions?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No one can predict the future, and as Minister Lui said, it is very difficult to visualize how the future will look. So we do what comes naturally – we project what we see today as a basis of what will happen in the future. The problem is that many Singaporeans do not quite like what they see today.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The White Paper plans for a “good quality of life”. But that means different things to different people. To most Singaporeans, day to day issues weigh most in their minds. How will the building of new MRT lines and housing make our lives better if we are, at the same time, growing the population? Will the added capacity only be sufficient to cater to the increased population? In basic terms, will Singaporeans have to wait longer, shorter or the same for their flat or the next train? Or are we, as in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast as things move, just to stay on the same spot? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The distinctions between Singaporeans and foreigners must also be carefully reviewed, as that is a matter which will have growing significance as the Singaporean core diminishes. How do we deal with the issue of PRs not doing National Service? How are we going to ensure that jobs which Singaporeans are ready, able and willing to do are not given to foreigners? How do we help our children secure places in good schools and universities? How do we ensure that foreigners do not speculate and drive up property prices, and put it beyond the reach of Singaporeans? Essentially, how do we ensure that those with no skin in the game do not walk away with all the prizes? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We need to address these and other difficult questions now. If we do not, few will trust the Government to get it right in 2020 or 2030. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member Mr Liang Eng Wah, as it puts the issue in better perspective, better context.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just as important, we should not mislead Singaporeans by simply telling them what they want to hear. It is easy to discount projected population figures by a million or so, and then say that the work force shortfall will somehow be made up by foreign brides and productivity, that we can simply decide how many % of GDP we want (as if there is some magic machine to input numbers) and that we can all live happily ever after with lower growth. There is a difference between a vision and a fairy tale. We have to compare something with something. This debate will not be served by comparing the Singapore envisioned in this White Paper to one which exists in utopia.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Singaporeans are best served by details, not posturing. And I do not mean simply throwing numbers around. Let's deal with the real effects on real Singaporeans. For example, what will low growth mean to employment opportunities for young Singaporeans? All around the world today, youth unemployment is increasing at alarming rates. The ILO 2012 report puts Youth Unemployment for Developed Economies and the European Union at 18% for 2011 and projected to be the same for 2012. As at July 2012, Spain and Italy had youth unemployment rates of 52% and 35% respectively. This is because businesses are not investing or growing, and cannot absorb the young who are graduating from schools each year. Why do some assume Singapore will be different? Businesses in Singapore will not invest and expand if labour is tight and growth is low. To say that we can have the same growth as other mature economies is no answer as it ignores the problems these other countries already have. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, this is not about having good GDP numbers. Having a job makes a world of difference to a person and his family. If you have no job, no prospects, no hope, everything else is pretty much moot. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What about other effects? Will we have to pay more taxes? What will it mean to our retirement age? Willl we have enough workers in essential services, such as domestic, health and geriatric care, and construction to meet the additional infrastructure and health care services we need? These are important to the daily lives of Singaporeans. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Under the Workers' Party plan, there will not be, and it is a pipe dream to believe that Singaporeans alone will make up the difference. These and other questions have to be answered if there is to be a credible alternative or at least, a meaningful debate. It is not enough to simply say that there has to be "structural changes". It is clearly not enough to say you empathize with local SMEs which will be killed off by your plan, and then say your solution is for the Government to solve the problem. It is also not intellectually honest to suggest that shareholders will suffer and Singaporeans will not, when we are dealing with Singaporean businesses, Singaporean owners, Singaporean employees, Singaporean shareholders, all supporting Singaporean children and families. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ultimately, we are engaged in this debate because we want all Singaporeans to have a better life and future, and to help Singaporeans understand and deal with the realities on the ground. We should not be disacted by numbers, nor should we use numbers to distract. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I hope the Government will deal with the issues of today and give confidence that it will be able to solve those of tommorrow. New plans, programs and initiatives, like those announced by MND and MOT are good. But Singaporeans need to see them work and feel their lives improve. That I believe is the only way to ensure that Singaporeans will take the next leap together with the Government.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-22508981980446808692013-01-10T22:08:00.001+08:002013-01-10T22:08:14.592+08:00Goodbye To ECs <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The recent news of a $2m Executive Condo (EC) has prompted many to call for a review of the rules governing ECs. MND has responded to say it will look at building regulations. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a simpler solution – get rid of ECs altogether. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What was the rationale for such housing? Government wanted to help those who aspire to, but could not afford, private housing. It was a noble intention – but that is the problem. As is the experience with many countries (we are by no means unique on this score), government policies are usually founded on good intentions, but have altogether different consequences. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What has been the consequence of the EC scheme? While there is an income limit to restrict applicants, the fact is that many applicants can afford private properties, usually through savings or help from their families. On the other hand, many who qualify but do not have help, would rather purchase a cheaper HDB flat because they do not want the burden of a large mortgage or have other commitments (children, elderly parents, etc). Of this group, those who earn over $10k a month have fewer options as they cannot purchase a HDB flat. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The result is that large government subsidies are being given to some who can otherwise afford to buy private property. Developers who are in the business of making money – not their fault – have been quick to pick up on this. They know that there is a ready market for large EC units because an equivalent sized private unit will be far more expensive, and there are many Singaporeans who have parents or relatives who will help them buy an EC because they see them as a good investment. So they build them. And can sell them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The other unintended consequence is that there is there is a group of Singaporeans who do not qualify to buy HDB, but who find themselves priced out of ECs or end up competing with those who can afford more expensive housing. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What we also have is a minefield of rules and regulations on the differences between HDB, DBSS, EC and private property many do not understand, so that there are no loopholes. But these will always exist, and we should never under-estimate the capacity of people to exploit a system to make money. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, the Government should get out of the EC/DBSS market altogether. Government’s role is to provide public housing for the masses. It is not to help people own private property. The latter is an aspiration individuals can work towards. Not everyone may want to stay in private property, and there is no reason to subsidise those who do. Where private property is concerned, government’s primary role should be to ensure that there are no distortions in the market which would adversely affect the overall economy – speculation, over-leveraging etc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what should HDB do? Here are my simple suggestions:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(1) Focus on building affordable, practical, good quality, public housing;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(2) Increasing the income ceiling so that most Singaporeans have the option of buying HDB flats, and fewer people are priced out of either segment;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(3) At the same time, do not allow HDB flats to become financial instruments, so that those who can afford private housing will find it not worth their while to venture into the HDB market. This can be achieved by simple rules, such as mandating anyone who owns a HDB flat to stay in it. There is no reason to stop HDB dwellers from investing in the private property market – but if they want to hold on to their HDB flat, they must live in it. We should put a stop to private property dwellers renting out HDB flats. That is another subsidy to those who do not need it. There is no public interest in allowing this; and </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(4) Use subsidies to make smaller HDB flats more affordable so that more poor families can get out of rental flats. 1 and 2 room flats should be priced such that the mortgage can be serviced with the same amount families are currently paying for rental. That gives them a stake in their homes. Home ownership can make a huge difference to the financial well-being and progress of poor families. It also encourages families to stay together and promotes stability. That is the foundation on which Singapore was built. Building more rental flats is a short-term solution which will only put more poor families into a cycle they will find difficult to get out of.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some of these suggestions will sound familiar, as that was what HDB first started doing. HDB needs to go back to its roots, and not try to be all things to everyone. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-67170958903933778662012-11-24T16:56:00.002+08:002012-11-24T16:56:14.273+08:00To name or not to name? (That is not the question)<div style="text-align: justify;">
MOE’s decision not to publish the names of top PSLE students and schools was deemed sufficiently important to warrant mention on the front page of the Strait Times. These days, it seems anything to do with PSLE does. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I must admit that the news did not overwhelm me. The move is obviously intended to downplay the importance PSLE. But will it ease the pressure? I doubt it. Parents, principals and teachers will still consider the PSLE to be a critical, high stakes exam. That will continue to dictate how they approach it, including the pressure they will place on our children to perform and the steps they will take (tuition) to ensure success. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The MOE has said that it will look at PSLE as part of a holistic review of the education system, and that this will take time. This is reasonable. We should avoid making hasty decisions and not lose sight of the larger picture. The real question is what is in the minds of our planners and what do they perceive the issues to be? Discouraging press reports of top performers gives very little insight on what is on the table. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, every school is a good school - but some schools are better. It is not about facilities – MOE equips all schools with good facilities. It is about the school culture, tradition, teachers and peers. You will not convince anyone that it does not matter which secondary school a child goes to. While going to a particular school does not guarantee success, every parent wants to give their child the best opportunities possible. That means sending them to a school with the right environment and culture, which challenges students to work harder and do better. Schools with good track records will always attract more applicants.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So long as PSLE determines which school a child goes to, there will always be stiff competition, and therefore stress. This is unavoidable, and not always a bad thing. Our children should learn that getting what they want does not come easily and sometimes, things do not go according to plan. But if they do well, there is nothing wrong with letting the rest of us know about it. Perhaps others will learn and draw inspiration.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question should therefore be about substance, not form. If it keeps PSLE, MOE should focus on ensuring a system of proper assessment and fair competition for places. There are some things they can do. For example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(a) Ensure that teachers teach the syllabus properly and thoroughly, so that students are not forced to look to tuition to fill in the gaps. This unbalances the playing field; </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(b) Have a robust system which properly assesses principals and teachers, and remove poor performers without delay; </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(c) Look seriously into DPM Tharman’s point about how we draw such fine lines in our PSLE scoring system. I remain unconvinced that T-scores properly measure the ability of a student; and</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(d) Get rid of direct school admissions for students in the GEP. If they are truly gifted, they can compete with everyone else at the PSLE. </div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-45517832609783835472012-11-21T20:44:00.003+08:002012-11-21T20:44:59.415+08:00Gambling with our future<div style="text-align: justify;">
We had a debate in Parliament last week on our casinos. The Government is enacting laws to further regulate gaming activities, including introducing visit limits. Not unexpectedly, MPs from different parties took the opportunity to express their concerns about problem gambling and to question whether we did the right thing in allowing the casinos into our country.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But I could not help thinking if we were avoiding the real issue. Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of gambling. I think it is completely irrational and unproductive, and said so in Parliament. The mathematicians will tell you that the games are calibrated such that the casino always wins. The casinos make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits every year. Where do you think these come from? Yet a gambler's ego (or delusion) tells him that it is somehow different for him - that he can outsmart the casino or that he is luckier than others. In my work as a litigator, I have come across a few cases where people have stolen from their employers or others to fuel their habit or pay for losses. Despite losing huge amounts of money (in four cases, millions), these individuals continued to believe, even after their arrest, that their luck would turn and they would win everything back, and some. It is a delusion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But why my reservations about the debate? Because gambling was already pervasive before the IRs, and will continue to flourish even without them. Three of the four cases I referred to above where millions were stolen, pre-dated the IRs. I once read a report that illegal gambling was a larger business than legal gambling. And now with the internet, on-line gambling is likely to grow exponentially. Restricting access to the IRs will not address problem gambling - not even close.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More importantly, as MP after MP got up to express their concerns, I realized that none of us have livelihoods which depend on the IRs. If we shut down the IRs, what do we tell the thousands of Singaporeans who depend, directly or indirectly, on them for their next pay check? Have we asked them whether they think it is a good idea to have IRs in Singapore? Their views count too. I also recall that the IRs were built at the time when the world looked headed for the next great depression, and many in the business community spoke of how the IRs would create jobs and help Singapore ride the storm. And there is no doubt that they did help. It is fine now to talk about how well Singapore has done and that there are more jobs than workers. But that was not the case a few years ago, and will not likely be in the future. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some talk about how we should not be dependent on IRs and that we should develop our economy in other areas. Everyone agrees with this. We should not put all, or even most of, our eggs in one basket. But we are not doing that. Further, while it is simple to say that we should develop other areas, it is altogether more difficult to identify what those other areas are or predict if they will be successful. And it is telling that such speeches are usually bereft of details. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is another larger point. Gambling can be addictive and has ruined many lives and families. But so has alcohol. In cases of drunk driving, it has taken lives. Why isn't there an equally loud call to ban its consumption? How does one explain heavy government regulation on gambling, but not alcohol? How about smoking, which causes disease and death, even to non- smokers? If the answer is that people should exercise personal responsibility over drinking and smoking, why can't they be expected to do the same for gambling? Indeed, a much stronger case can be made for banning smoking entirely. But very few are asking for that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am not championing gambling - far from it. As I say above, it is an irrational, unproductive activity. And it is particularly objectionable as it exploits human weakness to make money for its promoters. But I think that it is also important for Government to be consistent, and have a clear and rational position on all such activities. The question is what the role of the Government should be in regulating gambling and other vices? If you want a ban on gambling, you must also accept that the Government can and should ban smoking, alcohol, prostitution, and all other activities it considers harmful to society. But this is the “Nanny State” we do not want. In any event, you will find it difficult to get consensus on what is harmful and what is not. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The current framework we have appears to be a reasoned one: allow free market forces, but set rules and restrictions to protect, and provide assistance to, vulnerable groups, and calibrate such regulations as circumstances may warrant. That is the same approach we have for smoking and alcohol. Government can only do so much - the rest will depend on family and individual responsibility.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-86803329694304611482012-11-10T14:56:00.000+08:002012-11-10T14:56:45.672+08:00Singapore Conversation - The Broken Window<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some weeks ago, a middle- aged lady came to see me at my MPS. She was not a resident in my constituency, but her mother was. She said that a group of boys playing football had broken her mother's window. She wanted the Town Council to pay for the repairs. It was a small sum, but I explained that the Town Council could only use its funds for common property. Where residents cannot afford to pay for their own personal repairs, I have arranged for contractors to help them. So I enquired about her family's circumstances. It turned out that they could afford to replace the window. So why the request? Her argument was simply that her family was already bearing the costs of her mother's medical bills, and she therefore believed that the government should help with other expenses. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Her request made me reflect on a larger point - what do we expect of Government? It is the same question other countries are asking. It was one of the major issues in the recent US elections. And in the UK, there has been a long debate over whether Government should do more, or less. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
</div>
<div>
In Singapore, most of us will say we want Government to have a major role in making our lives better. But it gets more complicated when you get into specifics, simply because different people want different things, some of which are in direct conflict. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So what is Government's role? What are its (to use that horrid term) KPIs? How do we judge when a particular policy is good or poor, working or not? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
</div>
<div>
That is an issue we should also be discussing in the Singapore Conversation. And when I say discuss, I mean with real specifics, because the previous debates on national issues have, in my view, been let down for lack of it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For example, here are some areas which require more detailed discussion.
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><u>Housing</u></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most will say that it is Government’s role to provide affordable public housing. But:</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Should public housing be available to every Singaporean, regardless of financial circumstances? If not, what should the threshold for eligibility be? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
How should affordability be defined? MND uses the international benchmark of not spending more than 30% of salary to service your mortgage. If not that, then what? Currently, over 80% of HDB owners service their mortgages entirely from their CPF – in other words, no monthly cash outlay. Is that a good measure of affordability? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Or is Government's role to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads, whether owned or rented? If that is the KPI, it must follow that it is Government's responsibility to provide housing even for those who cannot live in their current homes because of conflicts with family members, or who cash out by selling their flats. These are two most common reasons given by my constituents who ask for rental flats. Should subsidised housing be provided to them on demand? If the answer is no, some will end up sleeping in public places. Do we accept that?</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><strong>Transport</strong></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most will agree that it is the government’s role to provide an efficient, affordable and extensive public transport and road network, and to ensure that traffic on our roads is reasonably smooth flowing. If so: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Is it also Government’s role to make cars affordable to meet the aspirations of those who want to own one? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If it is not, should it be concerned about the price of COEs for private cars or leave it to the market? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If Government must keep COE prices low, what is “low”? And how should it determine who gets a COE? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
If Government should do away with COEs, how should it ensure smooth flowing traffic? </div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can ask similar questions on other issues. The answer cannot be "it depends" or "case by case" - that is a cop-out. Government policies have to be clear and transparent, and applied properly and fairly. We should of course empower public servants to exercise discretion and make exceptions. But it is fundamental that the principle and policy are clear so that Singaporeans are able to make personal decisions which will affect their future. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unless we get into specifics, we will not get anywhere. And part of that discussion must include what costs are we prepared to pay - not just financial, but social as well. Because there are consequences to every decision we make, and these cannot be left out of the equation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-15181555725166695412012-09-23T22:55:00.000+08:002012-09-23T23:03:26.951+08:00Primary Colours Part 3 : 49 Shades of Grey<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A number of people who commented on my post on PSLE (Primary Colours 2: The PSLE Dilemma) appear to have mis-read it. They said I wanted to scrap the PSLE. Let me break down what I actually said:</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(a) It matters a great deal which secondary school a child goes to;</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(b) The PSLE determines which secondary school a child goes to;</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(c) PSLE has therefore become more a competition, forcing parents to take measures which (they think) will help their child outscore their peers. This is at the expense of a proper childhood and possibly even a good education;</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(d) I am in favour of scrapping PSLE PROVIDED there is a better way to determine secondary school placement;</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(e) I considered several alternatives, and ultimately advocated a system which offers parents more choices. This includes having non-government primary schools, affiliated primary and secondary schools and a common exam for entry to "better" schools. </span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am glad that my post has generated some debate. I think it is good that we have a full and frank conversation about such serious issues. What is clear is that very few like the current system. But it is equally telling that no particular solution has garnered any general support or consensus.</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One alternative was proposed by the Managing Editor of ST, Mr Han Fook Kwang. Writing in today's Sunday Times, Mr Han said he was against scrapping PSLE, and instead suggested sending better teachers to under- performing schools. His intention is clearly noble. But the necessary consequence is that we will also send "less good" teachers to better performing schools.</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem with this and other similar suggestions is that it mis-states the Government's role in education. When we say that education is the great leveller in society, we mean that it should enable every child to reach his potential and not be deprived of opportunities because of his background or circumstances. It does NOT mean that we should cause all children to come to the same level by lifting up the lower performers and dragging down the better ones.</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr Han also said that he is not in favour of scrapping the PSLE because "it represents, for the families in the heartlands, that one chance of a lifetime for their children to have a shot at academic stardom and that coveted place in a top secondary school". This underscores the problem with the arguments in favour of keeping the current system. First, no one is suggesting that any new system should take away the opportunity to advance. On the contrary, the fear is that the current system is weighed against those who are less well off, because they cannot afford (good) tuition and therefore cannot compete. Second, and more importantly, the fact that PSLE is seen as a "once in a lifetime" chance IS the problem. Children should not have their futures determined by a single exam when they are only 12years old. That particularly prejudices children who are less well off who, because if they fall behind early in the race, they have a more difficult route to attaining tertiary education.</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But Mr Han does raise one more "myth" which the MOE should address: do better teachers end up in better schools? Schools with better resources will be able to offer better terms, and therefore have their pick of teachers. That is one reason for the intense competition to get into them. While I am not in favour of a policy which sends better teachers to lower performing schools, I am equally against the reverse happening, by design or otherwise.</span></div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="yiv416004298MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It would therefore be good if the MOE could inform the public how it ensures a fair distribution of teaching talent and resources. And I hope the answer will not be that every teacher is a good teacher.</span></div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-51837760813847370192012-09-14T23:23:00.001+08:002012-09-14T23:23:10.522+08:00Primary Colours Part 2: The PSLE Dilemma <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is an old joke about two hunters who are charged at by a bear. One reacts by putting on his running shoes. "What are you doing?" asks the other. "You'll never out-run a bear!" The other responds: "I know. I just need to out- run you."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />That, I think, describes how most feel about PSLE - the concern is less about whether our children are receiving a good education, but more about whether they will out-do other kids. The reaction of parents to the recent announcement on changes to the PSLE English syllabus bears this out. The ST reported one parent welcoming the change because it will give her daughter "a competitive advantage", while another was concerned that his son "will lose out". The issue was not about whether the changes would give a better grounding in English - it was all about how their child’s PSLE scores will be affected relative to others’. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
MOE puts in considerable effort and resources to ensure that every school in Singapore is able to give its students a good education. And its recent move to remove banding, de-emphasise exams and promote non-academic aspects of a child’s development is laudable. However, many believe that nothing will change until we change PSLE.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But PSLE by itself is not the real issue. It is irrelevant to career choices, job prospects or polytechnic/university admissions. It serves no purpose other than to determine which secondary school you go to. But the secondary school you go to matters a great deal. It is not just about whether the school has good facilities or teachers. Other factors are important as well. These include peer influence, tradition and environmental factors. Going to a good school may not guarantee success, but it can make a difference for the child to be in a setting where fellow students are motivated and have the drive to excel. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reality therefore is that so long as a child's PSLE scores determines which secondary school he goes to, and so long as places in “better” schools are limited, two things are inevitable - (1) there will be competition - and therefore stress – to get into those schools (2) parents will do what they can to help their kids out-score their peers. To most, that means tuition.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why do parents do this? Because we all want the same things for our children - to succeed in life and to be happy. We do not consider these to be mutually exclusive pursuits. Indeed, we believe that the more successful our child, the more likely he will be happy. But we have no crystal ball or magic wand, and cannot know for sure what we should or should not do. All we can do is to give our child opportunities. If that means sending him to a “better” school, we will aim for that. And if that entails sending him to tuition (or abacus or Kumon, etc), we will do it. If we have to take no pay leave six months before exams, so be it. If it means cooking special food or giving herbal concoctions to boost energy, bring out the recipe book. What makes parents most insecure is the thought of their child not succeeding because of something they did not do. So, some of us will end up over-doing and over-compensating. Nothing the MOE does or says will change that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am all for slaying the PSLE sacred cow. But we need to first agree on an alternative way of deciding who goes to which secondary school, other than by way of a common exam. What are the options?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Option 1: Leave it entirely to the discretion of the secondary school principals? I can already hear complaints of unfair or preferential treatment, based on wealth or connections. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Option 2: Making all secondary schools identical to remove any perception of privilege or superiority? Or assigning places by ballot? Most will object to this and it does not make sense. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Option 3: Change the testing at PSLE such that it more accurately measures talent, instead of hard work? But that is easier said than done, the parents’ insecurities will remain and tuition centres will still say they can make a difference. More importantly, why down play hard work? It is a virtue worth inculcating and rewarding. It is something we have to do all our lives. As a lawyer, I have found that there is no substitute for preparation – and that involves spending hours poring over documents, making sure you know your facts and the law, and being able to answer questions the Court throws at you. Exams are no different. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Option 4: Give parents the choice to opt out of the PSLE altogether? We can have more "through-train" schools, where students gain entry to affiliated secondary schools without a common exam. Those who wish to compete for a place in the “better” secondary schools can sit for the PSLE. We could also allow private, independent primary schools to be set up, with graduates eligible to go to private or international secondary schools. But there will be no MOE funding and therefore higher fees, and this option may not be available to all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, different solutions lend themselves to different issues. I would prefer a system that gives parents more choices. We are not likely to find absolute consensus on any system as we have different circumstances, different aspirations and different expectations of Government. More importantly, the role of education today must be to prepare the child for opportunities (and challenges) the world, and not just Singapore, will offer. It is unrealistic to expect that a single, universal model can achieve this. We need to move away from a one-size fits all model, and let parents decide the trade-offs they want to make for their children. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Government should think about loosening its grip on education, so that Singaporeans can choose for themselves what they want for their own children. Perhaps, this will be explored in our National Conversation.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-54947371333936747382012-09-03T22:19:00.002+08:002012-09-03T22:19:18.906+08:00Primary Colours – Dispelling Myths About Primary Education<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the system of pre-school education featured heavily at the National Day Rally, the message which resonated most was a simple one: PM's urging that pre-school should be more about developing social skills and that kids should be allowed to enjoy their childhood. Every parent I know wants that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the tail that wags the dog is primary school. We regard pre-school as a preparatory step to primary school. Mandating that pre-schools focus on soft skills may make more parents turn to private centres to coach their kids on the hard skills they think are necessary for primary school. That would make the problem worse. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think there is a more fundamental question of what we want our primary school system to be, and whether we should allow more choices in the system. Minister Heng spoke of two different parents: one did not want to his child to have homework during the holidays, while the other questioned why his child was not given any. Perhaps the solution is for the two children to swap schools – in other words, allow parents to choose the kind of education which best suits their child. When government runs schools, it tends to result in a one-size-fits-all approach. This is not a criticism – it is a natural consequence of efficiency and fair distribution. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But so long as we maintain the current system, MOE can and should deal with parents’ concerns about Primary One education. They should start by addressing directly and clearly a number of questions which keep surfacing. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Myth or Fact 1: It is not clear what literacy and numeracy skills children are expected to have when entering Primary One.</strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Parents I have spoken to are not clear about what level of skills their child should have when they start Primary One. The consequence is clear: if parents do not know, they will over-prepare their child. The MOE should simply make this clear, and remove the anxiety. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Myth or Fact 2: Teachers do not teach the curriculum if the majority of the class already knows their stuff.</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is much anecdotal evidence that this happens. If it is true, MOE should put a stop to it. It only rewards over-preparation and forces others to over-prepare as well. That just means more homework and tuition. If teachers want to teach beyond the curriculum, fine, but it should not be at the expense of their responsibility to ensure that all their students are taught the curriculum. If parents want their child to get ahead, that’s their prerogative, but they must accept that their child may get bored having to do the same thing twice. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Myth or Fact 3: Teachers encourage parents to send kids who are behind for tuition. </strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, one hears of this happening. It would be particularly egregious if the child is considered “behind” simply because his classmates are ahead of the curriculum and the teacher is therefore not prepared to teach it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More fundamentally, it should be the obligation of the school to help those who are behind or have difficulty coping. The problem should not be out-sourced to a tuition centre. With primary schools going full day, there is more scope to offer weaker students extra lessons. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Myth or Fact 4: Pupils are “streamed” according to abilities in Primary One and the better teachers are assigned to the “better” classes</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If this is true, MOE should put a stop to it. This only encourages parents to over-prepare their child to get into the "better" classes. Putting all the “better” students in the same class also lends to the impression that children will not be taught equally. Teachers should be assigned randomly. Also, if teachers ensure that all their students are taught the curriculum, there will be no need for such “streaming”. Besides, if you want pre-school to be more about social skills and play, it makes no sense to group kids according to their literacy and numeracy skills the minute they enter Primary schools. The only assessment the school should be concerned with is to identify the kids who have not achieved the minimum skills (Myth 1) and to give them extra attention (Myth 3). Given that more than 99% of our children go to pre-school, this will likely be a small group in each school.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even with these changes, will some parents still send their kids for tuition? Of course they will. Parents will do what they believe will give their kids an advantage. That has been, and will always be, the case. And we should not stop that - it is their prerogative how they wish to raise their children. But what we can and should do is to address features in our system which compel such conduct.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some have said that any changes at pre-school or lower primary level will have little or no effect unless we also deal with GEP and PSLE. I do not think that is necessarily true, although we do need to address some issues with them as well. I will share my thoughts in a later post.</div>
Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-29535918412818259462012-06-16T21:31:00.002+08:002012-06-16T21:33:23.400+08:00After note - Crime and PunishmentIt has been drawn to my attention that Woffles Wu did not pay the person whose particulars were furnished. The first sentence of my post is therefore incorrect. The thrust of my post, that the courts should have greater flexibility in sentencing, nonetheless remains.Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-69968441309336012022012-06-14T22:55:00.003+08:002012-06-18T19:18:01.390+08:00Crime and Punishment[Note: This is a revised version of my initial post. I had stated in that post that Dr Wu had paid someone to take the rap. I have been informed this is incorrect, and no payment was made. I am sorry for the error and have corrected it in this post.] <br />
<br />
<br />
I must admit I was surprised by the fine of $1,000 imposed on Woffles Wu. <br />
<br />
Such offences are undoubtedly serious, as they seek to undermine the course of justice. Others who have committed similar offences have been jailed. I do not know what the Judge took into account in making his decision, and I accept that no two cases are the same. However, I hope there will be an opportunity for the court to explain its reasons and how other cases where jail terms were imposed were distinguished. That will promote transparency and confidence in our legal system, and deal with allegations of unfair treatment, which have already appeared on the net.<br />
<br />
I believe that part of the problem is that most times, the law gives judges very little discretion in sentencing - it is usually a fine or jail or both. There may be occasions where a fine is too lenient, while jail may be too harsh. Further, if an offender cannot pay a fine, jail is the default. That creates two problems - it discriminates between those can pay and those who cannot; and it converts a light punishment to a heavy one.<br />
<br />
I would prefer if the court had more flexibility in sentencing so that the punishment truly fits the crime. For example, where a person gets another to take the rap for a traffic offence to preserve his driving licence, wouldn't a more appropriate punishment be to suspend his licence? Inflict on the offender what he was trying by criminal means to avoid. Likewise for less serious cases of vandalism, get the offender to clean up more than he has damaged.Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-11737052290169622012-06-07T23:00:00.000+08:002012-06-07T23:00:08.695+08:00'Sticker' LadyIt has been interesting to read the many pieces on the net about the arrest of the Sticker Lady, both for and against her and what she did. People should be free to debate issues which affect them, and persuade others, through logic and reasonable arguments, to support their cause. That is a sign of a healthy society. <br />
<br />
But is not clear what the particular movement - to excuse the Sticker Lady from punishment - is saying.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that what was done was criminal – an act of vandalism or nuisance. Is the object then to repeal the law altogether? That would make it legal for anyone to draw on or otherwise decorate public property? I don’t think that is what the vast majority wants. <br />
<br />
Is what was done acceptable because it was creative or considered “art”? That gives rise to real difficulties as one man’s art is another’s poison. So what do we expect the police to do? Should they be art critics as well, and decide what is acceptable? I don’t think many would favour that. Or perhaps that should be for the judge? Would that not mean that the same work may be considered criminal by one judge and not by another? I rather more certainty, and less arbitrariness, in our criminal laws. The judge can always take into account the context, reasons behind and extent of the “art” in mitigation and sentencing. And sentencing does not have to mean jail. <br />
<br />
Others have offered solutions, such as setting aside public space for those who want to exhibit their works. That sounds fair, although it would not have worked for the Sticker Lady’s “art”, which requires a context an exhibition area would not have. “My Grandfather Space” does not quite have the same ring. Still, we have to grapple with what constitutes acceptable art. I stumbled upon a statement in my Parliamentary colleague, Yee Jenn Jong’s blog. He said: “My suggestion is for the spaces that we set aside, set some simple rules like no profanity, no attack on race / religion, and then let whoever is in the approval committee decide with a liberal view when proposals come in.” "Proposals", “Approval Committee”? So, we need more committees to decide and approve such matters? Interesting.Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-71249977727879760842012-03-29T12:08:00.000+08:002012-03-29T12:08:01.786+08:00NYP Student Racist remarkMy initial reaction to the report Ms Shimun Lai’s offensive post was of anger, disgust and exasperation. She has rightly apologised and withdrawn the remark. This will be a tough learning experience for her, and I hope she emerges the better for it. But the heat she and others like undergraduate Sun Xu have generated with their thoughtless remarks will not dissipate so easily. <br />
<br />
<br />
Racism will not go away, however many apologies are uttered. It has been part of society since, well, society began. Man has a long history of being suspicious, and speaking ill, of people who look, speak, dress or even eat differently from him. The only difference today is that the social media allows a person to vent to thousands what used to be said in smaller, private circles. <br />
<br />
I have seen or experienced racism myself, whether it is rude remarks made by school mates, or stories related by relatives and friends that so-and-so did not get a job or promotion because of the colour of his skin. Several minority residents have approached me as an MP complaining of discrimination at the work place or in job opportunities. <br />
<br />
Is Singapore different from other countries? Not in the least. Almost everyone I have spoken to who has spent time abroad has encountered racism in one form or another. My nephew studying abroad even had an egg thrown at him from a passing car while he was walking down the street. <br />
<br />
No society or group should be judged by how some of its members behave. That is unfair. The real test is how society reacts in the face of such provocation. Look at our reaction. Singaporeans were quick to vigorously condemn Ms Li for her remarks, and to remind her that they were out of place in our society. That is the difference between us and some. In other societies, such utterances provoke violence and revenge or are defended on the grounds of free speech. I think we have a better sense of balance and perspective, and appreciate that there must be reasonable limits to individual liberties. It makes Singapore exceptional, and we must work hard to keep it that way.<br />
<br />
We must continue to speak out against racism and discrimination when we encounter them. We should not simply shrug our shoulders and say that they are part of the landscape, an inevitability in a multi-cultural society. That would be admitting defeat and put us on the road to mediocrity. <br />
<br />
And what to do about the likes of Shimun Lai and Sun Xu? I am reminded of one my favourite scenes in Attenborough’s movie “Gandhi”. Gandhi lies weak from fasting as a protest against the Hindu-Muslim riots. He is confronted by an angry Hindu man who demands that he eats. The man said that he killed Muslims in the riots because they killed his child. He was going to hell, but he did not want Gandhi’s death on his soul. Gandhi offered the man a way out of hell. He told him to find a Muslim boy orphaned by the killings, take care of him but to raise him as a Muslim. It was a powerful statement about salvation. <br />
<br />
Ms Lai, Mr Sun and others who step over the line should not just apologise or simply accept whatever punishment comes their way. They should have an obligation to help in the healing process. And the best way to do that would be for them to get to know and befriend the very people they have condemned. <br />
<br />
My initial reaction to the report Ms Shimun Lai’s offensive post was of anger, disgust and exasperation. She has rightly apologised and withdrawn the remark. This will be a tough learning experience for her, and I hope she emerges the better for it. But the heat she and others like undergraduate Sun Xu have generated with their thoughtless remarks will not dissipate so easily. <br />
<br />
Racism will not go away, however many apologies are uttered. It has been part of society since, well, society began. Man has a long history of being suspicious, and speaking ill, of people who look, speak, dress or even eat differently from him. The only difference today is that the social media allows a person to vent to thousands what used to be said in smaller, private circles. <br />
<br />
I have seen or experienced racism myself, whether it is rude remarks made by school mates, or stories related by relatives and friends that so-and-so did not get a job or promotion because of the colour of his skin. Several minority residents have approached me as an MP complaining of discrimination at the work place or in job opportunities. <br />
<br />
Is Singapore different from other countries? Not in the least. Almost everyone I have spoken to who has spent time abroad has encountered racism in one form or another. My nephew studying abroad even had an egg thrown at him from a passing car while he was walking down the street. <br />
<br />
No society or group should be judged by how some of its members behave. That is unfair. The real test is how society reacts in the face of such provocation. Look at our reaction. Singaporeans were quick to vigorously condemn Ms Li for her remarks, and to remind her that they were out of place in our society. That is the difference between us and some. In other societies, such utterances provoke violence and revenge or are defended on the grounds of free speech. I think we have a better sense of balance and perspective, and appreciate that there must be reasonable limits to individual liberties. It makes Singapore exceptional, and we must work hard to keep it that way.<br />
<br />
We must continue to speak out against racism and discrimination when we encounter them. We should not simply shrug our shoulders and say that they are part of the landscape, an inevitability in a multi-cultural society. That would be admitting defeat and put us on the road to mediocrity. <br />
<br />
And what to do about the likes of Shimun Lai and Sun Xu? I am reminded of one my favourite scenes in Attenborough’s movie “Gandhi”. Gandhi lies weak from fasting as a protest against the Hindu-Muslim riots. He is confronted by an angry Hindu man who demands that he eats. The man said that he killed Muslims in the riots because they killed his child. He was going to hell, but he did not want Gandhi’s death on his soul. Gandhi offered the man a way out of hell. He told him to find a Muslim boy orphaned by the killings, take care of him but to raise him as a Muslim. It was a powerful statement about salvation. <br />
<br />
Ms Lai, Mr Sun and others who step over the line should not just apologise or simply accept whatever punishment comes their way. They should have an obligation to help in the healing process. And the best way to do that would be for them to get to know and befriend the very people they have condemned.Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7828177907048632804.post-16224830635921367652012-03-05T23:41:00.003+08:002012-03-05T23:44:21.690+08:00The $1.1 billion package to expand bus capacity – Who is the Government Subsidising?<div style="text-align: justify;">Many people have asked about the Government’s decision to spend $1.1 billion to expand public bus capacity. One of the key questions is whether this is in fact a subsidy to SBST and SMRT, the two public transport operators (PTOs) . It is in fact a subsidy for commuters, and not a subsidy for the PTOs. This note explains why. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Government considered its investment to expand public bus capacity very carefully. It is an important step, aimed at reducing waiting times and crowdedness that Singaporeans experience as they take public transport. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, what are the PTOs themselves responsible for? The PTOs are required to expand their bus fleets to cater to growth in passenger numbers, as well as to ensure they meet the service levels mandated under existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, in addition to operating the existing bus fleet, they will have to buy 250 additional buses to achieve this. They will fund this on their own.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Why is the Government putting $1.1 billion into the bus system? We are doing this in order to step up bus service levels well beyond the current service standards required of the PTOs. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">a. It will increase bus capacity on existing heavily-utilised routes making them less crowded and giving commuters a more pleasant journey. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">b. Almost all feeder buses will run every 10 minutes or less - for two hours during morning and evening peak periods, instead of a one-hour peak under current service level requirements.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">c. Commuters on existing routes will thus benefit both from shorter waiting times and less crowded bus journeys. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">d. A number of new bus services will also be added in order to improve connectivity, and provide commuters with more public transport choices.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">e. These improvements are what commuters have been hoping for.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As a condition for the Government’s investment, the PTOs will have to deliver these service level improvements.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We cannot simply mandate that the PTOs add these 550 buses to improve service levels. First, because it goes significantly beyond the service levels under the current regulatory framework. Second, the PTO’s bus operations are already running operating losses, and the 550 additional buses in particular are projected to be a loss-making operation. The cost of acquiring and running the 550 buses are beyond what can be recovered through revenues from these buses.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">a. Take the example of improving the frequency of feeder bus services. Increasing the number of buses will shorten waiting times but will add little to the revenue, since the total number of passengers taking the service will remain largely the same. <br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Without the Government stepping in, these significant service levels improvements would only have been achievable if fares are raised sharply. The 550 additional buses mean significantly higher costs - not only to purchase the buses, but also because more than 1000 drivers would need to be hired and paid a good wage. Fare revenues of the PTOs would have to go up by about 12% - 13% - which translates to an increase in passenger fares of about 15 cents per journey - for the PTOs to achieve this on their own. In the 5 years from 2006, fare revenues went up by only 0.3%, cumulatively. So 12% - 13% is quite a significant increase compared to the last 5 years. <br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hence the reality of the matter is that the $1.1 billion Government package, or $110 million each year, is a subsidy for public transport commuters, and not a subsidy for the PTOs. It will improve service levels for commuters, not the profits of the PTOs.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The $1.1 billion package is expected to cover the losses on the 550 buses - in other words, the additional costs net of revenues. Of the $1.1 billion package, $280 million is budgeted for the purchase of the 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million to cover the net operating costs over 10 years. This is based on best estimates currently. However, we will be monitoring and scrutinising the PTOs’ actual costs for both the purchase and running of the buses. Should their losses turn out to be lower than expected, the Government funding will be reduced correspondingly. So one way or another, there will be no profits made from the 550 buses. <br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The $1.1 billion for additional buses complements the $60 billion we are putting into the expansion of the rail system. It will take several years for the new rail lines to all come on stream. That is why we are stepping in now to add bus capacity and quickly improve the daily experience of commuters. It is what commuters wanted, and we have assessed that it is worth the public investment.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite this Government package, regular and incremental fare increases will continue to be necessary in future, as wage and operating costs rise, so that the bus industry can stay financially viable. The Government will also continue to make sure that needy commuters get adequate assistance for their transport expenses. </div>Hri Kumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09933696452301734566noreply@blogger.com2