Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Robbing Peter to pay Peter
After my initial reaction to the announcement of the increase in GST in my previous post, I realise that the latest move by the Singaporean government to increase the GST to 7% is not going to help the lower income groups as much as they would like to have us believe.
The reason given for increasing the GST is to generate money to help the lower income group. To finance the aid packages to help the lower income group, the government chooses to tax consumption instead of income. This is hugely unfair to the lower income group because they are worse off with the increase in GST compared to an increase in income tax.
An increase in income tax will not affect the lower income groups as much because of the various tax reliefs that can be claimed.
Let’s take for example a family of four, with the husband (an active NSman) earning $1,200 per month, the wife being a homemaker and two children who are in primary school.
The total annual income, based on a 12 month period, is $14,400. Let’s take a look at the taxable income for this family.
Earned income tax relief: $1,000
Wife relief: $2,000
Qualifying Child relief: $4,000 (each child is eligible for $2,000 relief)
Relief for NSman: $3,000 (active)
Relief for Wife of NSman: $750
Total relief: $10,750
Therefore, the income that is taxable for this family is only $3,650.
Since the GST will increase by 2%, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that annual income tax has risen by 2% instead of GST. The tax increase for this family is $73.
Suppose that this family spends $1,000 per month on goods and services in order to survive. Increasing the GST by 2% will mean an additional increase of $20 per month. That means that the annual increase brought about by GST is $240. This is more than 3 times the amount that this family would have to pay if income tax had been increased by 2 percent instead.
Well, let me provide even more astounding figures. The first $20,000 of one’s income is not taxable. This means that this family doesn’t even need to pay income tax, no matter the increase in the percentage of income tax. The only way to make this family pay tax is to increase the tax on consumption, which is the GST.
Therefore, if GST goes up to 7% next year, this family would need to pay $70 a month in tax, and that would be $840 a year. If there was no GST, and the 7% had gone over to income tax, this family would not have to pay a single cent in taxes. The GST is a really ingenious idea to make the poor pay more tax.
PM Lee said in the report from Channel Newsasia that the increase in GST “will give us precious extra resources to implement social programmes like Workfare later on. Our aim is to help the lower income groups and the elderly, not to increase their burdens.â€
After doing the math, I find it contradictory that a tax that penalizes the poor is going to be implemented to help the poor. It’s not even a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul; it’s a case of robbing Peter to pay Peter.
Addendum: In response to the proponents of GST, I’ve added another entry further arguing against a GST hike. You many access it here.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 14/11/2006 at 3:59 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Robin Hood: “I robbeth the rich to giveth to the poor, I didn’t know that it was fashionable to robbeth the poor to giveth to the poor?”
about 3 years ago
Welcome to Singapopore.
about 3 years ago
Aaron, perhaps u shouldn’t waste time computing that because it is never a rational decision to increase GST. It is increased because they have to or rather Lee’s family has to since the news in internet say that Thailand is prepare huge fine for Singapore in terms of billion of dollars. The moment the MPs say welfare is not good for nations, then all of sudden PM himself override say that he support GST increase to help the poor and old age, you already something is wrong. Why is he shooting his own MP and minister ? It is pretty obvious, even his own men-in-white doesn’t know what the hell he up to. It obvious that these GST thing is done in desperate and rush mode. Thailand say that it will come out the fine soon, and now PM rush out to implement GST next Feb. Aaron, isn’t that clear cut to u ???
I don’t know how the hell he is going to implement those policy given that these sum end up paying as fine, but I tell u Aaron anyway. The Lee’s family and PM will be up to their usual trick blaming the globalization ,economics and blah and blah when none of their promise is ever realized. Their usual trick as seen from last election. Oh yes, i haven’t even talk of optus’s loss yet, the one that so large, strait time won’t even published, and PM’s brother yang step down and “move on”.
about 3 years ago
Yes, as mentioned before, even their own MPs are screwed by the “sudden” GST hike and in a big way. Just imagine that these MPs tell the people that there will not no more increases anymore and now, the people will blame the MPs for this shit. The man in centre screwed everybody, including his MPs. GST increase cannot help the “purely commercial” losses much and not in time, I can bet that there will be more increases in some other areas. It is like stealing company money for gambling. When the losses piled up, steal more company money to gamble more to put back the stolen money. Someone is wetting their pants …
about 3 years ago
I’ve a brilliant idea!…. Maybe we should suggest to Mr. Chiam S T and Mr. Low T K to resign their MP seat right now….and force a By-Election…
And They can use the recent GST, Bus Fare , … as an election platform…I am sure they will have an increase in their shares of votes…
What do you think?
about 3 years ago
i like your analogy… it doesn’t make sense in any sense.. they are taxing the poor to amass funds to help the poor.. inane..
about 3 years ago
Singapore Constitution
Filling of vacancies
49. —(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.
about 3 years ago
Hi Samboy,
The reason why I do the math is because I want to prove that the poorer folks are being taxed in the name of providing “aid” to them. We can speculate for all we want, but the message really hits home hard when the figures are examined. From $0 of tax to $840, that’s seriously alot of increase. Let’s just say that 0.5% of the population fall into the example that I raised.
0.5% of 4 million people is 200,000 people. Take $840 x 200,000 people, that’s $168 million. Imagine if the ST has a headline that reads “Govt to set aside $168 million for helping the needy”. It’s a wonderful headline to show how caring our government is, if we don’t examine a little deeper into where the money came from.
I’ll probably write about the need for public record laws sometime in future. We need such laws so that the citizens know what their government is doing.
about 3 years ago
Well Layman,
I fear that you may be right. A gambler first gambles away his own assets, and then starts looking elsewhere for more money to gambler. It’s scary to imagine if this is the case. If you read littlespeck.com, there’s an article suggesting that Singapore may not be doing very well because our MM has become unusually active now compared to the GCT years.
about 3 years ago
Well Stanley, if you like what I write, you can tell others about it. The government seems to encourage this as well with their insistence not to slay the “many helping hands” sacred cow. We can only depend on one another to save ourselves. The government won’t do it.
about 3 years ago
Hi CCW,
I don’t think it is wise to force a by-election because the people in Hougang and Potong Pasir are already not in favour of the PAP. A by-election is unlikely to return results that proves something. It would be interesting if a PAP MP resigns. That would say something.
about 3 years ago
Saw this blog, didn’t agree with the calculations. I have posted my reply.
about 3 years ago
For the sake of my readers, I will copy Bart’s comments in its entirety here.
A blog claims that increasing GST to fund social programmes is like robbing Peter to pay Peter (http://aaron-ng.info/blog/robbing-peter-to-pay-peter.html). I feel compelled to say something, from the standpoint of an economist. In a nutshell, the robbing Peter example is incorrect. The economics of the tax is sound.
The policy maker has to raise tax to finance the necessary expenditure. What best way to do it? The best tax is one that does not distort the price signals. The classic one is the lump sum tax. Once the tax is levied as a lump sum, there is no impact on the relative prices between goods at all. Margaret Thatcher tried this with the Poll Tax (every one was to pay a fixed sum) back in 1989. Good economics, but bad politics. People were simply aghast that every one had to pay the same amount. It led to widespread riots and eventually brought down the her government.
Income taxes has a negative effect on work incentives. What about consumption taxes? If the consumption tax is levied across all goods, it does not change relative prices. So if you are clamouring for exemptions for the poor (such as on food, medical items etc etc), you are in fact introducing changes to relative prices as a result of the tax. An undergraduate economics student will know that this creates what is known as a excess burden – which is a loss to society. Why? Because the relative prices are distorted by the uneven application of the tax, people over consume those goods that are exempted and under consume those that are not. It becomes a resource distortion to the economy – resources are not allocated to the best value, but by the favouritism of the tax.
But of course, at this point, many of you would jump up and say – wait a minute, isn’t consumption tax levied on all goods regressive, since the poor spends proportionately more on consumption? Yes and no. Indeed, every one (including, but not only, the poor) will be worse off in terms of welfare with the increase in GST. The trick however, is to compensate the poor an amount no smaller than the loss they suffer due to the tax (jargon: compensating variation). The key therefore is how much the Government compensates the poor in terms of income packages elsewhere. The whole package has to be taken into account.
But does this make sense financially, taxing and giving back? GST will affect all of us, but the compensating package will only be for those who need it (however defined). Since the Government is not giving every one the compensation, it therefore makes sense financially for the Government. It can either choose to compensate the poor more, or spend on other programmes. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
For myself, explaining the economics is easy. I have been trained to think rationally and scientifically. But I can understand how dealing with the emotions of the tax increase will be much more difficult.
about 3 years ago
Hi Bart,
You may be the economics expert, but I do not agree with your reply. It’s all so easy for the economist to sit in their comfortable armchairs in his/her office and make remarks like that. Sure, its sound economics. However, does sound economics warrant squeezing of the poor?
You say the trick is to compensate the poor an amount no smaller than the loss they suffer. Well, why don’t you go and identify the poor and compensate them? It creates an additional problem of who qualifies and who doesn’t.
Income tax hurts work incentives, you say. Please, the rich people are finding all kinds of ways to exploit tax loopholes. Why do you think that tax accountants exist? The rich are smart enough to reduce the impact of taxes on them, but the poor have no such ability.
Ultimately, you can argue all you want from the economics perspective, and I respect your wealth of knowledge in economics. I come from the standpoint of a poor person who knows nothing of your economical arguments and who only knows how much this GST increase will impact them. For the poor, from paying nothing in tax to paying hundreds is ALOT. The best part is, the bulk of their income is spent on items whose demand is price inelastic. They have no choice but to suffer. The rich can scale back their spending more easily because they spend alot of their income on items that are price elastic.
Charts, numbers and economic logic means nothing to a person who’s struggling to survive.
about 3 years ago
Join us at “Building Our Singapore-The Public Service in Action”, an exciting and interactive
exhibition jointly brought to you by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Public Service Division (PSD),
to celebrate the constant dedication of the Public Service to serve the people of Singapore and its spirit of innovation
Date: Wed-Sun, 15 to 19 Nov 2006
Venue:Toa Payoh HDB Hub Mall
Time:10:30 am to 9:30 pm daily.
Come see how the Public Service aims to e-delight you through electronic services and strive to serve our citizens and residents better with a heart of service!
http://www.mof.gov.sg/buildingoursingapore/index.html
about 3 years ago
Any analysis of the revenue in Singapore must include the COE. Many middle class people pay more in COE than in income tax.
The COE is a middle class tax. Poor people don’t buy cars, and the COE is a meagre percentage of the cost of a lamborghini.
If the COE drops then there has to be some way of recouping the drop in revenue.
The COE being used to facilitate transportation facilities is a fucking joke because some people who get deported to concentration camps have it better than people taking the MRT at 8 in the morning. I’m sure it’s a major component of revenue.
about 3 years ago
When we go into numbers, we are presented with the long and short terms results of any tax adjustments. People may need a longer time to see the concrete results of these tax changes, if it is conceived with good intentions to help everybody. What we are seeing here is different. The rosy news, the new rules, the price increases, the bad news (er, non MSM), the mistakes and others are just too coincident. It is like adding oil to fire. The raw emotion of the people is understandable. But, unknown to us is the REAL intention of the government for the tax and please, do not give me the “rise tax to help the poor” reason.
about 3 years ago
Does anyone notice that there was another article in our ever reliable press extolling the virtues of the civil service? It COULD be a COINCIDENCE (the caps show how likely i believe it to be)
Anyway whats new? as Ms Sylvia Lim said during the last rally of the last election, singaporeans will be putting their heads on a chopping block… her words have come true but i fear that soon enough all this will be forgotten until the next time when the story repeats itself…albeit with a few changes( maybe the oppos will lose more seats?)
about 3 years ago
I personally can’t exactly make sense out of PM’s decision to jack up the GST rate by another 2%;albeit delivering the blow at once instead of the 1% done to the previous 2 adjustments from 3 % to the present 5%
Raising tax to help the poor?
For the middle income families and those living from hand to mouth,from the heartlander viewpoint,is more like adding more financial burden to their daily living…
Might as well ask the MPs take less pay…to them who r getting 10k+ a month,2% increase is peanuts…to the President whose pay is dwarfing one Bush,that is probably even more like ikan bilis..
So much for these elites living in their little world…
And I find the way they defend themselves over the controversial Shin Corp deal rather weird…sounds like simply trying to smoke their way thrgh wif excuses…
about 3 years ago
This is a sign of very poor and weak leadership. A leader that is not born a leader. I believe a leader should be innate ability especially one that govern a country. It’s not something u train out of nothing and suddenly believe just because u born under dad’s sperm, u have dad’s innate talent.
This PM is definitely a big disgrace to Singapore, and even GCT fare better than him. GCT is more humane in running the country. But now, we have this clown to run the country and manage our money ??? And yet we don’t even know how they manage the $$$$$ ? I believe the reserve is already gone bust, and now getting the media and things into believing that we still have future. I hope that our ex-president Ong will rise from the grave and strangle these Lee’s useless legacy and family.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
u say that public record law is needed ?? When u have a single party running the country, even the law amended is to make to protect the party from blame and mistake. For last few decades, many say that there is accountability and transparency, but after years of BS, nothing come out of it, and life goes on. Because accountability and transparency is what will destroy PAP with their load of BS.
Singapore is just build on image of success, with no real substance behind it, just outlook appearance. Beneath it away from the appearance, we know that it is a great failure and time bomb waiting to be ignited.
AndyXie’s leaked email:
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/economy/CTrendsEconomy-061005.htm
has tell us the truth. Why Andy hold great position if he is crappy ?? He is forced to resign over the fact he say.
So guys, let countdown the timebomb. I waiting for that day too, sadly.
about 3 years ago
Reading both this article
http://aaron-ng.info/blog/robbing-peter-to-pay-peter.html
and this article
http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple_is_the_reason_of_m/2006/11/gst.html
One/both/none of you must be wrong, or I am confused
about 3 years ago
robbing peter to pay peter – i totally agree. it doesn’t even help the poor! it makes them even poorer.
i think you should say,
welcome to SingaPOOR.
about 3 years ago
If the vote increase by 10% or more in a By-election in Hougang or Potong Pasir will force the gahmen to acknowledge the unhappiness of the people regarding the many unpopular policies introduced since after the election.
The opposition will also get their chances of presenting their views in Rally( which can only be held legally in sg during election.).
Any increase in the vote in these constituencies will also increase the support base for the oppositions.
However, LTK and CST will have to take some politicall risks for making such move.
about 3 years ago
And this increase in GST coming so soon after the transport fare hike!! At this rate, jobless people will have to think twice before going for interviews!!
about 3 years ago
Let never get delusion about election. It’s more about erection than election because LKY already say u can never change gov by election. If can, LKY will simply amended the law to prevent that. LKY done that before ,and continue to do so since he know that there is nothing Singaporean can do, except like chicken screaming, whiner.
So let’s wake up and don’t believe the wrong thing. Sometimes, I wonder who the real “terrorist” is in Singapore.
about 3 years ago
But guys here, blogger here,
do not worry too much la. The gov will continue to brainwash u, sweettalk u, terrifies u, so that tomorrow, u can carry on living.
So don’t worry, we lost job, but our dear GCT say “if there is no retrenchment, then Singaporean need to worry”. Since GCT and gov are so smart and credible, tomorrow, i fire myself and seek for gov help la.
about 3 years ago
“From $0 of tax to $840, that’s seriously a lot of increase.”
Speaking of math, its an infinite increase. lol
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
Your analysis confines to the Singaporeans and if you do that, it is like what you say rob Peter to pay himself. In implementing the GST hike, the foreigners who works here will also be taxed at the same rate.
If I am not wrong, the top 20% affluent group tend to have more foreign executives. That gives another source of income to create the offset package. That will how someone creates the cash to fund these programmes.
In any case, taxes are raised to deal with the deficit such that the reserves are not touched.
about 3 years ago
your analysis is too narrow and biased.
tunnel-vision.
about 3 years ago
Hi Layman,
I agree with you with regards to the real intention of the GST hike. It came out of a sudden, catching everyone by surprise. Why would something so important as a GST hike be seemingly railroaded down the throats of Singaporeans? I don’t understand.
about 3 years ago
Well nedstark, my opinion is that the PAP knows that most Singaporeans are a greedy and kiasu lot. The last time they gave out the New Singapore Shares, didn’t they increase the GST shortly after that, even though the economy has yet to recover? Most Singaporeans suffer from, in the words of the anonymous commenter, “tunnel-vision”.
about 3 years ago
Well Samboy,
I am in favour of public records law. I am of the opinion that if my government is as clean and uncorrupt as they claim, they should not be afraid to subject themselves to scrutiny. In fact, subjecting oneself to intense scrutiny and coming away with a clean bill of health will ensure the longevity of the PAP in being the dominant party in Singapore politics.
And, I make no secret about me being a fan of the American political system. That’s the closest thing you can find to an ideal system of checks and balances, as well as transparency.
about 3 years ago
Well Confused, I will be making my argument in response to BL and anonymouse right after this comment. You can decide whether whose take you want to believe.
about 3 years ago
Hi BL,
Thanks for dropping by my blog. I read your blog rather often and you do offer some great insights.
However, I beg to differ on the issue of the GST. If we want to raise money without making the poor poorer, the best way is to do it via income tax. However, the economical argument is that this creates a disincentive to work.
Well, it does create a disincentive to work, but whose disincentive are we talking about? Obviously, the rich. They are the ones who will get taxed more because they draw disproportionately high income. I don’t see why the poor will feel that there is no incentive to work because under Singapore income tax laws, the poor seldom need to pay a cent in income tax.
Then, the next argument is the the rich people are the ones who provide employment and high income taxes will chase them away. When I look at Scandinavian countries like Sweden, their income taxes are ridiculous. However, is that country full of poor people? Have all the rich people pulled out of Sweden? No. Money (and by extension, taxes) is just one consideration on whether one wishes to remain in a country. I don’t mind paying taxes in Sweden because I know that I will never starve to death there, and my kids will get free education, right up to university.
An increase in GST only makes the poor even more poor because they have nothing else they can cut back on in terms of consumption. The rich can buy less Mercedes and Rolexes, but can the poor buy one less meal, or pay one less month’s worth of water and electricity bill? No. GST in my opinion will widen the gap between what some has termed “the two Singapores”.
Besides, we raise taxes in the name of helping the poor. Who are the poor, or rather, who determines who is poor enough to need help? Look at Mr Tan Jee Suan who threw himself on the MRT tracks. His case is one good example of the gaps in our social safety nets. More money doesn’t mean that those who need help will get help. If we don’t mend the social safety nets, more money isn’t going to help, no matter how good the idea sounds.
about 3 years ago
Hi anonymous,
Even if I’m tunnel-vision, at least I’m not stupid. Even a primary six kid can come up with that two lines of yours. If you want to pick a fight, please do so with some sense of honour, instead of throwing useless comments and then running away.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for the note and also your interest in reading my blog.
It might be easier if we break down your arguments to the following statements (please raise any objections if I have interpreted your arguments wrongly):
1. The GST hike will make the poor poorer, thus fulfiling the problem of widening income gap and further the rift in what I coined the “Two Singapores”.
2. Income tax is a better option than raising GST across the board. You raise the example of Scandinavian countries as a counter example to why it provides the better option.
Let me take on point 1. I have no official statistics on how many foreign professionals there are in Singapore (i.e. that includes investment bankers, management consultants, executive directors and etc), but the only statistic I have is that the number of registered millionaires, one out of three are foreigners. It is likely that they have property and we tax them on the property they own. There is a possibility that their household will have the tendency to make purchases as much as they can on luxury goods.
A simpler way to argue this is to see how a poor person manage their purchase of daily necessities. A $1 toothpaste will cost a poor person $1.07 to purchase, compare to the rich who might purchase a $5 toothpaste that will now cost $5.35. You have suggested that the rich might tighten their pockets on the daily necessities, but they will also spend on luxury goods or their cars as well. The GST is an accumulative tax, i.e you lose more money if you pay more for goods or services purchased.
The real crux to make my argument valid which I will like to have the answer is the following information:
a. The number of professionals in the top 20% income group and if I am not wrong, most of them are foreigners. Btw, foreigners don’t get free education or some other benefits. Only if they join A-STAR or government related companies, they get healthcare subsidies but they pay into the CPF as well. Their expenditure is definitely more than the average Singaporean.
b. The number of people in the definition of “poor” people. I totally agree with you what constitutes the poor population. If we based on the definitions using social mobility and income distribution in General Household Survey, the figure will be about 5-10%.
The central issue is that the poor will pay the goods with GST and get subsidized while the middle class and the rich don’t get that subsidy back. That’s how the government wants to do it. They want the Singaporeans and foreigners to pay for the income gap, instead of tapping the reserves. I am not talking whether the policy is good or bad here, but whether it is economically sound. My understanding of the hike is that the government has decided that they don’t want to do it and they want the citizens to pay it.
The second point is a bit tricky. While living in Europe for several years, if you do high income tax, there is a tendency for workers not to work and rely on the welfare subsidies. Already, my colleagues in Sweden are complaining that they are taxed to pay for the poor and most of them will prefer a way where they can have more money to themselves. Don’t you often hear the Conservatives in UK talking about tax cuts? The other thing is that healthcare is universal in Sweden, and their pension system is now suffering from the problem that they don’t have enough money from the next generation to feed the baby booming generation.
Ultimately, the link between healthcare, poor and pension is a difficult problem and no government has managed to solve it.
The real issue which we can only wait till March is the offset package. I want to know how much they are using from the GST tax to offset the poor. If you don’t notice, they have started to talk about healthcare subsidies for the poor yesterday.
Well, we can take it further if you like. Ultimately, they have wasted their political capital as KTM aptly put it.
about 3 years ago
Hi BL,
You have not misinterpreted my arguments. I think that there are valid points to both your argument (which I think is more pro-GST) and my argument (which is obviously more anti-GST). It’s a good thing to have both sides put their points on the table and talk it out. Most things in this world is not black and white, but rather, varying shades of grey. We need both the black and the white in order to make the most optimum shade of grey.
I still don’t buy the argument that GST isn’t regressive. My key bone of contention is the issue of choice. The poor don’t have much of a choice to cut down consumption because the bulk of their money is spent on bare necessities, while the rich don’t spend the bulk of their money on bare necessities. It’s really much easier for the rich to cushion the impact of any increase in tax on them. Further, it is also easy for the rich to just walk away to another country. The poor are the ones who will have always have the short end of the stick, and I think that GST really gives them another short end.
As for the Scandinavian countries, I do agree that they are facing problems. The system is showing its faults, but the problem is not with the taxes. The problem is with the lazy people. A complete welfare state is unlikely to be sustainable, but perhaps one that hybridises our model and their models might work. Once again, it’s two ends of the extreme and we should be looking at which position on the continuum represents the most viable balance.
And of course, the ever smart and critical KTM always hits the nail on the head (KTM, if you are reading this, its NOT sacarsm. It’s a backhanded compliment :p). Indeed, as a communications student, I cannot help but wonder what were the “spin doctors” doing?
about 3 years ago
Aaron, BL..
If we are talking about the poor as in the POOR – those who are trying hard to make ends meet. Any increase in basic necessities is a burden, a time bomb to them.
So, if the raise in GST do not have any direct or indirect impact on the cost of basic necessities (e.g. electriciy, water, cooking oil, rice, ….. you get the drift), then that shouldn’t be a critial issue to the POOR, since they couldn’t afford the “luxuries” in the first place.
But, if the reverse is true, then along the road, life may get harder for them, unless year after year there are handouts/payouts to help them “get even”.
However, if we are talking about the poor as in the poor – those who cannot afford to go to Europe (taxi) for the annual holiday (daily trip) and have to settle for Australia (SMRT) instead, then it’s not that bad. Life still goes on!
So, who are we referring to?
My 2cents worth
about 3 years ago
Hi BL, Aaron, and many others.
The cause of arguments and unhappiness of GST hike is probably tied to the fact that we no longer can trust the gov at face value, one party-ruling, scandal happening, media control, questionable decisions, and covered up by gov. If gov needs cover-up and money for other purposes rather than fulfil their manifesto and promise, then that’s will be fearful for Singaporean. The fact to ask ourselves is this: Can we still able to continue to the trust the gov and support it, and trust that it make wise decision ??? Unfortunately, I no longer able trust the PAP like rest of many people here. The optus loss, Shin”Corpse” loss, nepotism in making decision, empty promises that blame on terrorist, globalization, Singaporean’s inability to produce baby and skill, etc. The worse thing is that loss in terms of billion dollars is downplayed by gov, and i believe either they think that loss can come easy from ppl’s pocket or use new policy to think up money. This is happening because gov is running the country like corporation with profit at its core, and humanity just a patch-on and wayangness. We have all see it with our own eyes, and that can’t be denied.
Instead of building the nation and grooming the Singaporean as a valuable asset, gov seem to take shotcut and short-termism decision. It is one think to come out new policy to help the poor and needy. But you can’t help feeling if this thing is all just “patch-on and move-on” type. I have yet to experience something as subtle as this, not even when LKY and GCT is PM. There is obvious something lacking in LHL’s leadership and his ability to lead the country that not only confuse the people, but also his own-men-in-white.
As mention by someone in the blog that LKY’s obvious and increasing involvement nowsaday indicates something is very wrong. LHL has been in politics so many years, and yet, unable to fulfil the promise of ppl and start blaming on other “weird” reasons. Singapore has been making miracles to come this far, and the obvious reason is that ppl in the past is willing to work hard and believe the system.
The last thing we ever want is to start questioning the leadership and yet there’s is nothing we can do about it, but to continue to deny ourselves, and find self-reasons to accept the choice, the one and only choice by our leader.
about 3 years ago
In radio, I heard professor commenting that since last time, the increase from 3% to 5% doesn’t seem to hit Singaporean at all and that they have adapt well and this increase to 7% will be no different. I think this professor “can really climb the ladder fast and gov will like him”.
When GST are increased, there is nothing we can do to change that, and we are forced to accept the change, and become flexible and adaptable. But that kind of thought irk me. Does that means Singaporean’s flexibility and adaptability become center of exploitation ??? History has shown that when things increased, Singaporean complain and move on, but do nothing at all. Does that mean gov think that there is no serious protest by public and uproar that Singaporean agree to policy ??? And by the way, the public protest is “not allowed” by gov.
about 3 years ago
aaron needs to grow up and realise that he may not be right all the time. when people post a rational, thoughtful and objective reply, like bart did, you don’t need to feel so uptight and come out on the defensive so obsessively. sometimes aaron even resorts to personal attacks and name-calling, which doesn’t do the trick of defending his point or showing his maturity.
aaron, please stop, for the sake of all tchs/hc alumni everywhere, cool down, and reply properly. being hot-headed won’t earn you much respect.
about 3 years ago
Well jonathan,
Thank you for your 2 cents worth. However, I do not understand the basis of your point.
I have read my reply to Bart again, and I found that I have not called Bart names, nor insinuated anything about him. If you are mature, you owe me an explanation as to what constitutes “personal attacks and name-calling”.
Bart is a PhD candidate in economics who probably knows what he’s talking about. And I acknowledge that he knows his stuff. However, that doesn’t mean he is always right. And, people are entitled to their own opinions. That I defend my points strongly and insulting people are two different matters. Once again, I fail to see where have I called Bart names.
Lastly, I think you should cool down and read my post properly. There is a difference between being hot-headed and being passionate about your opinion. And, if you want to criticise, please put forth your evidence. Making blanket statements like the comment you just posted without proper citation as evidence of your argument, in your words, “doesn’t do the trick of defending [your] point or showing [your] maturity”.
In anycase, I am not expecting you to reply. If you were sincere in engaging in a mature discussion, you wouldn’t have written the way you did, which looks more like a calculated attempt to make me look bad. If you are willing to respond, I’m willing to take up the discussion. The ball is now in your court. Let’s see what you do with it.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
Singapore really that kind of ppl like you who stand up for his belief. This is the kind of person that ex-president Ong is and which PAP fears and bring him down because he start questioning gov policy and status quo.
We have to ask ourselves. Are we supportive of GST hike because there is nothing we can do, so we find self-relief reasons so that to make us feel better, even though we are not naive to trust the men-in-white anymore ??
Strange enough, most that support the rise of GST hike keep comparing other countries’s higher GST and cost of living. We should never fall under this trap, otherwise, when things increase, the same reasons will be repeat over and over again. It happens a lot of time as mention in newspaper where even transport mp say it is justified because after rising fare, it still cheaper. Mind everyone, the gov is here to serve the ppl and not the ppl to serve them. The gov has to be aware of their role and duty, not to use Singapore as a base for lucrative business. It is because gov is getting out-of-hand in term of accountability and transparency that every laymen is a afraid of.
about 3 years ago
and please, don’t tell me Singapore needs a different kind of government here. All gov’s role should be the same today, tomorrow and forever. That is “for the people, by the people, from the people”.
about 3 years ago
Aaron, there you go again – being confrontational.
looks more like a calculated attempt to make me look bad? cool down, nobody’s out to get you, you don’t have to be so paranoid. i’m just saying that you are always too quick to defend your points and sometimes get very personal, which sometimes does detract from your credibility. and no, i’m not writing a blog post for mass consumption, and it’s quite okay for me to not engage in mature discussions with you – it’s up to you to present mature and responsible thoughts on your blog, if you so wish. and if any case, if you’ve been allowing your blog to be publicised widely on numerous blogs and aggregators, you should probably get ready for such attempts to dirty your name, else you won’t get much more respect than the Government does.
If you were sincere in engaging in a mature discussion, you wouldn’t have written the way you did now you’re quick to judge my level of maturity with just a paragraph i’ve written. i’ve read many of your posts, and while you mostly make good attempts at being rational and empirical, when people put forth their own rebuttals you tend to border on the emotional.
you demand that i put forth evidence to qualify making any comment. maybe that’s how things work in your mind, and that, too, is probably how our leaders’ minds work – that speech must always come with responsibility. well no, it doesn’t always do, especially when people – like me – aren’t really looking for any long-term respect or credibility, and that’s perfectly fine, even if you beg to differ. that’s true of many democratic societies. i’m a mass consumer akin to the average voter Joe, and i don’t need to be responsible if i’m not trying to be credible. next time when i want to be credible, and if i’m trying to convince people, i’ll stop being lazy and i’ll do some research and copy/pasting.
but for now, here’s my two cents’ worth of unsupported arguments. take it or leave it, but keep in mind that it’s much harder for us to look at ourselves clearly and objectively than it is for others to evaluate you rationally.
about 3 years ago
Hi Daniel,
I think that the PAP government overall has the interest of the country at heart. Unfortunately, what is transpiring in our governance is that we are having a parent-child model, or if you like, a top down approach. This is something that is increasing causing unhappiness with the populace, primarily because the populace is getting more educated. I’ve written a piece on the political price of educating Singaporeans, and that it is increasing more difficult for the populace to accept unilateral decisions from the government.
about 3 years ago
Hi jonathan,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. After reading your post, I’m glad to see that you summarised yourself up: i don’t need to be responsible if i’m not trying to be credible.
I don’t like to deal with people who think that just because there is freedom of speech, they are entitled to say anything they want without thinking about the consequence of what they said. It’s a gross sign of immaturity. I’m fine with discussing issues with any kind of people except for those immature and irresponsible ones.
I have no idea why you keep insisting that I’m paranoid, I’m defensive, I’m emotional and whatever else you choose to imply. It was just a logical analysis of your comments from my perspective. I’m afraid that you are the one whose imagining things and trying to impose your imagination as “reality”. If you choose to view me with a certain tinted perspective, no matter what I say, you will construct my words to suit what you choose to understand.
Therefore, I will no longer respond to you because it’s pointless to waste time dealing with someone who has a preconceived notion and unwilling to accept alternative explanations. I take your point that it is much harder for us to evaluate ourselves objectively than it is for others to evaluate us. It is a good point and I thank you for bringing it up. However, objectivity itself is subjective. I am a post modernist, and I don’t think that true objectivity is attainable.
What I can do is to listen to alternative views and see if I agree with it. When presented with alternative views, I have the choice to accept the alternative view or reject it after consideration. If I choose to reject the alternative view, I have to put forth my arguments. While I may put forth my arguments in a very passionate way, I fail to see why that is equivalent to “personal attacks”. It’s just a matter of style.
And, I don’t know which world you live in, but no matter where you go, you cannot make comments without substansiating them. In school, you will fail your exams if you do not argue for your points with evidence. At work, if you do not justify your proposal with evidence, your proposal will be thrashed. In the court of law, if you do not have evidence, you have no case. I fail to see why it is wrong for me to demand you to present your evidence. If you want to make a claim, please provide the proof. I don’t think you can take your watch and go into the watch store to claim warranty without proof of purchase.
Lastly, I have no control over who wants to read or publicise my blog. If people like what I write, they are free to publicise anywhere they want. I do not think that I have been immature in any way, because what I argue for, I back up my arguments with quotes from sources I deem is reliable (except posts that are of a personal nature). You on the other hand make claims without substansiating, and in my opinion, that makes you look bad, not me. I am fully prepared for people to, in your words, “dirty” my name. However, that does not preclude my right to respond. It seems to me that you are insinuating that I should quietly accept the likes of you who go around making baseless accusations. I don’t think that’s being fair. You say your case, I say mine, and let people judge. That’s being fair.
In anycase, I dare to put my name, my face and my contact to what I write. If I do not even have the maturity and confidence in what I write, I wouldn’t even start my own blog. If you wish for people to take you more seriously, please do identify yourself too. Then again, why would you identify yourself? After all, “i don’t need to be responsible if i’m not trying to be credible. “
about 3 years ago
some good things about the Internet:
1) there are anonymous proxies, so commenters are literally “unbannable”
2) there is freedom to say whatever we like
3) without having to be accountable to anyone.
4) people can change their personalities and image as and when they like.
I fully respect your choice not to deal with me anymore – that is a wise one considering your circumstances. But I would like to reinforce the point that by opening up your blog to public comment, I have every opportunity and right to post whatever load of crap i wish to in your domain. If you ever wish to curtail dissenting opinions or insults, however unsubstantiated, for the continued aggrandizement of your image, then that option is always open to you. That’s how Oprah did it.
it is well and prudent for you to demand proof for whatever I say, but please keep in mind that it is equally well and prudent for me to ignore your pleas. and consequently you think it reflects badly on me, not you – for that very thought alone, please do nominate yourself for a Nobel Prize and use the prize money to buy a new mirror. Now, wasn’t that the very epitome of immaturity? That’s the beauty of the Internet – that I make an effort to be mature on every blog but yours, and I’m perfectly entitled to that.
Now that you have a vendetta against me and view me through tinted glasses, we’ll see how objectively you are able to respond to me the next time I do make considered arguments. I do foresee that your continued refusal to reply to any further comments from me would allow my future rebuttals, especially the considered and convincing ones, to your future posts to stand unchallenged by you. which means you won’t get a chance to defend your points from my attacks. so continue your policy of non-engagement and i’ll continue posting on your blog.
about 3 years ago
jonathan,
It is wise to have alternate view but as Aaron has said in his other blogs that to judge the GST hike based on economic terms is one-sided because there is lack of accountability and transparency. Economics is one thing, common sense is another. What’s the point of talking about economics value if the real purpose of money to pay off some “hidden debt, bad investment”. Everything of course seem sound because I am myself is an academic person who believe in numbers, but when it come to real world, I believe in what I see, and reality, and judge by what PAP say.
Yes, I agree with Aaron. Do go down and ask around the ppl (Of course don’t ever ask the gahmen), and the answer u get is what economic cannot answer directly.
Words is NOTHING IF END OF DAY, words is broken and not fulfiled.