Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The best Jobs Credit analysis
The Kway Teow Man has posted, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Jobs Credit scheme. He is all for Jobs Credit (as I am), and he explains in a very easy to understand way why Jobs Credit is a viable scheme. It’s something extremely worth reading, although it is insanely long.
If you have already made up your mind that the Jobs Credit is a piece of thrash, then don’t bother reading because you won’t be able to appreciate the arguments. The PAP doesn’t get things right all the time, but the Jobs Credit Scheme is a pretty decent piece of policy in my opinion, and it doesn’t deserve the brickbats that have been hurled at it.
And if your instinct is to call me a PAP Youth member after reading this entry, please save your time. You are not the first, and you won’t be the last, and I don’t care. I don’t live in pigeon holes, unlike you.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 10/02/2009 at 11:51 am, and is filed under Others. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 1 year ago
Goh Meng Seng was also not against the jobs credit (aka wage subsidy) although he is a member of the opposition. Economics unfortunatlely is not an exact science and plenty of it depends on how companies behave. At the end of the day, the outcome will determine if this policy is effective.
.
Nobody is going to call you a PAP Youth member because of this and like I said earlier no-one owns the absolute truth on this.
.
I will be doing a summary of my arguments of this policy but I just want to highlight a few points right now:
.
1. The JCS is a cost cutting measure just like a CPF cut for businesses. In past recessions, these cuts did have a positive effect as it lowered business costs. The govt did recycle an old formula for the JCS but it was too painful to cut CPF at this point in time with defauts in mortgages at a high. The main arguments of opponents of the JCS is that this recession is caused by the demand collapse and cutting costs will have a limited impact. The old formula will not work as effectively. If cost is an issue, why is china where cost is lower also losing jobs? Sure some jobs are saved but at at cost of $4.5B?…
.
2. $4.5B is a lot of money. Given that widespread retrenchments at the end of the day are inevitable even most people who support the JCS concede, it is better to also take care of joblessness…
.
3. The JCS is a blunt costly instrument. As a “jobs saver”, it has to make enough of a difference to influence the company’s hiring policies. This depends on the % of the companies cost is wages if 10% is wages, it will only make 0.5% cost savings vs 5.5% if wages is 70%. That is why some people argue for it to be industry specific to be more cost effective.
.
4. Some people argue that there is a trickle down effect of the JCS – a so called multiplier effect. It all depends on what the companies do with this money – they can keep it or invest ti create more jobs…but because of the investment climate, they might not invest it because demand is declining across all sectors.
.
Siew Kum Hong (http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/) has posted a summary of his arguments. JCS will be implemented and we can only wait for its outcome. In the meantime, many will still lose their jobs regardless, I just hope the govt do more to help these people especially those who have been struggling with low income and have a family to feed.
about 1 year ago
If the JCS is good, why do the top economists in Singapore have so much doubts about it? I think MP Low Thia Kiang’s concerns re legitimate and there is another side to this debate:
1. NTU economics professor Tan Khee Giap says the scheme can afford to be a lot more targeted in its approach. He argues that smaller companies should be given higher subsidies as their wage bills form a higher percentage of their total costs, as compared to larger multinational companies.’Instead of a 12 per cent subsidy across the board, maybe it should be 15 per cent for small firms and 5 per cent for larger firms,’ he says.
‘If the objective is to save jobs, the scheme should target small and medium enterprises since they employ 65 per cent of the workforce.’
2. National University of Singapore professor Shandre Thangavelu expects the scheme to have only a ’short-run’ impact on the retrenchment behaviour of employers. After a while, the layoffs will still hit.
3. Citigroup’s head of Singapore research Chua Hak Bin says the cost of the package seems disproportionate to the benefits it would possibly yield. ‘Suppose the scheme succeeds in saving 50,000 jobs, that’s a cost of about $90,000 a job. That’s double the median annual wage,’ he says. ‘The scheme looks disproportionately generous towards saving jobs versus helping those who are jobless, who get close to nothing in the Budget.’
about 1 year ago
As an across-the-board ang pow scheme to all companies, JCS definitely will meet that objective and I can’t argue with that. No company in its right mind will talk it down and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, especially since there is a prospect of more to come. Hence all the media reports on postive responses from CEOs mean nothing.
As a scheme to save jobs, it is a dumb, costly and ineffective way of spending $5B without imposing conditions or criteria to channel usage to the targetted purpose. And at the end of the day the govt. will still never know with any dergee of certainty its true effectiveness. My reservations are aligned with Lucky Tan, Siew KH etc. If this is the only help program for companies, I will say let it pass. But there are already a string of other gifts like income tax cuts, property tax rebates, training funds and guaranteed credit lines. What I find very unpalatable is the fact that we are robbing Pauls to pay Peters and Pauls and the thought that the money could go to pay dividends, higer executive incentives and salaries, or just kept in company kitty, and there’s no mechism to prevent that.
The impact from having or doing away with JCS is not going to make or break employers. On the other hand, a downsizing and/or a more targetted scheme to help weaker and smaller companies as well as retrenched workers will be a better alrenative use for the $5B and will definitely get better mileage. Before we get become numbed by the figures, $5B can give us a new MRT line, or build tens of hospitals and schools, kick-start our CPF Life or a healthcare package for all citizens. It is also more than the annual budget for the Ministry of Health. Are these not more worthy and lasting benefits for the people from the people’s reserves?
The argument that the JCS will make local workers cheaper to hire than foreign is a lame and unrealistic one, probably more like an after-thought. The cost advantage if there is one will be marginal. An employer worth his salt will know that JCS is a one-off for 1 year and his hiring decision will take on a longer persppective. After 1 year, foreign workers will still be cheaper and hence it may not be worth his while to fire, then later rehire and train foreign workers again. So JCS’s benefit is for sure shortlive.
What is of greater importance is that the more permanent solution is to correct our high all-in cost structure, which goes beyond wages alone, to ensure our competitive advantage against other countries like China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam which will also be vying for foreign manufacturers to relocate. Competiting on wages alone will make us come out a loser. HK recognises and today most of its factories have moved across the border to China. Undiscriminating schemes like JCS will just prolong a slow death for some of our marginal operators, and jobs will still be lost.
about 1 year ago
Lucky Tan,
There are people online who are so simple minded that anyone appearing to even remotely agree with the PAP = ______ (insert any derogatory noun). It would be nice if everyone has a big heart and open mind in cyberspace.
I will respond to your points one by one. You have great points which I am not going to argue against. What I’m going to do is hopefully point out some things that you might have missed out in your own thinking and analysis.
1. True, the problem is a collapse in demand. However, this doesn’t mean we should not be attempting to lower costs for firms, since demand isn’t the main culprit. If demand is already low, and costs remain high for firms, the chances of survival are slimmer. Right now, I believe what the government is trying to do is to boost the odds of survival for firms as far as possible. Some firms might face a demand collapse so great that no amount of cost cutting will help. There are other firms which might make it through if there’s help with cost cutting. JCS is really meant as a salvage tool, not even a rescue tool.
2. I agree $4.5 billion is lots of money. But as the KTM rightly pointed out, who knows what is the actual cost of rescuing a job? Again as KTM pointed out, would people rather have a job or have state assistance? I rather have a job. I get CPF, some employment perks (not much these days but better than nothing) and more importantly, I can definitely earn more than what state assistance can give. State assistance can only go so far. Your point on helping jobless people is well-taken, though. I do think that jobless aid is necessary for certain groups of people, and now we have the best excuse to implement one that will complement Workfare for the years to come.
3. I think the issue of fairness here is a subjective one. Do people living in 5-room HDB flats deserve any less aid than those in 3-room flats? Does it necessary mean that ‘big’ is always more stable and can hold out on their own? I think at the end of the day, the government doesn’t want to be seen as showing favoritism, not when it has spent so much effort luring these MNCs in. Also, if we want to argue for being industry specific, then we should also see what are the specific problems with each industry. I could be wrong, but the biggest problem for SMEs isn’t exactly wage costs but access to credit. The JCS will help SMEs to some extent but even if we give more money to SMEs via JCS, does it mean they will survive if credit remains tight? It’s open to debate and I don’t have the answer but the industry specific argument isn’t without its holes too.
4. This one I’ll agree with you. The government should not advertise the multiplier effect. Attempting to predict the behavior of companies isn’t wise. Anyway, the multiplier effect isn’t going to be big anyway, so why even raise it? The discussion should really be on whether the JCS can save jobs for Singaporeans.
about 1 year ago
Neutral,
In terms of cost, I think $4.5 billion is a conservative figure. I don’t think the government will spend that much. It’s better to come up with a large figure and then announce that we didn’t spend so much after all. I don’t know how the economists come up with their numbers. I am just a layman but from the figures being bandied around, the cost per job saved to the government is a max of $300 per month x 12 months = $3,600. With $4.5 billion set aside, this can potentially save more than a million jobs. Of course, I don’t think we will actually lose a million jobs in a year. It just seems more like the government is being way ‘kia-see’ here.
As for what the economists say, I would just say that they are just about as clueless as you and me. This is not a disparaging remark but rather, I think there are so many unknowns that no one can tell the future.
about 1 year ago
SIMPLE,
You articulate the concerns over the JCS very well but as I pointed out to Neutral, it seems that there’s an assumption that this $4.5 billion WILL BE finished by the end of the year. That is NOT TRUE. The max a company can get per employee this year is $3,600. Of course, then you are probably wondering about what the leftover monies should be used for. That we can discuss.
And I don’t know about the long-term impact of the JCS. What I seem to hear from the government is that the intention of the JCS is to save as many jobs as possible during this recessionary period and the JCS will be extended if necessary, i.e. it won’t be extended once the recession is over. So, why are you arguing about the short-lived effects of the JCS? It is meant to be a short-term tool. And, not only do we have to consider JCS, we have to consider other schemes like Workfare as well. With Workfare, a Singaporean can take from the employers the same wages as a foreigner because the government will provide additional top-ups. Besides, there are other not so obvious monetary and non-monetary costs with foreign workers, which may or may not be worth the additional 5 percent wage cost in employing a Singaporean with the JCS.
Finally, I think we can all agree that we can never compete on wage costs for low-end manufacturing. As a country, we need to keep moving up the value chain. This is why the Budget has also catered for assistance with higher education. I don’t know how else we can compete other than moving up the value chain. Any ideas?
about 1 year ago
Aaron Ng,
I think everyone had their say on this jobs credit already. The starting point is the assumption that there is a way to save many jobs in a worthwhile manner within a cost that still makes sense – the govt did brain storm and everything else was eliminated (rental rebates, utilities rebate, CPF cuts) and they got to this one main idea which is the JCS. Having monitored this crisis up close, I believe the assumption will not hold and we will eventually have to deal with the jobless problem. I actually hope the JCS succeeds and prove me wrong…and that Singaporeans go through this without that much pain. I really hope the PAP live up to its pledge to help anyone that needs help when the time comes.
about 1 year ago
Aaron,
The formula is pretty simple actually:
Total Cost of Scheme/ Number of Jobs Saved.
That’s how you get the cost/worker.
You don’t need to be an economist to understand it.
You must not forget that the scheme does not save every single job it affects, so you must factor in efficiency (proportion of jobs saved, so it’s a number between 0 to 1) in your calculation if you are using the $3600 figure.
Cost Per Worker * Number of Workers / Efficiency * Number of Workers.
I don’t really know exactly how the PAP came up with 4.5 bil, but I can tell you the bill for the JCS is easily predicted, given the right numbers
. And if I am right about how the number came about, you get a lower-bound of employed CPF-holders! 
It is a lot of money no matter how you slice it. In addition to this, I am quite certain the long-term impact of the scheme ZERO. So as far as I am concerned the cost is sunk cost.
But anyway as I said earlier, there are more interesting things to pay attention to this recession (like obviously USA, China and… less obviously, Japan and our surrounding ASEAN neighbours). The JCS isn’t going to be a defining event this round.
about 1 year ago
@Lucky,
You’re not very friendly leh. Invite you to my KT stall to lim kopi, you never come.
Having monitored this crisis up close, I believe the assumption will not hold and we will eventually have to deal with the jobless problem.
Truthfully, the KTM frankly isn’t sure that JCS WILL work. He is however completely baffled why people seem SO DARN SURE that it WILL NOT work. None of the arguments and figures he has seen thus far is sufficient to convince him to agree with you.
The KTM finds it hard to believe that you will disagree that we should try to keep locals employed. The KTM also finds it hard to believe that you disagree with him that we should try to send the foreigners home.
Let’s look at the facts staring at us: Jobs die die will be lost. Some of the fellas retrenched will be locals. How to keep the locals employed? Only two ways: (i) create jobs for them (which the Govt has done by employing people into the civil service) and (ii) by replacing the foreigners with the locals. Those who think the Govt can help the private sector to create jobs are out of their minds. Not in the present climate.
There is very little that the Govt can do about the current recession. All the Govt can try to do is to influence the employment profile of the country at the end of the recession.
We can choose between having a whole bunch of locals unemployed (and pay them off at the meantime so that they dun riot) and or we can try to send the foreigners home to keep the locals employed (and pay a premium to do so).
You got any better ideas on how to achieve (ii) other than the JCS? The KTM is all ears. Unemployment benefits DO NOT help reduce unemployment. They might even make it worse ‘cos people are in less of a hurry to find jobs.
Perhaps the point of contention is just cost. You think $4.9 billion is too expensive. The KTM doesn’t really have a strong opinion on this ‘cos he doesn’t really know how to price a job saved. Neither is it possible to get the data on how many jobs will be saved to know what the *REAL* price is.
Minimally, JCS will act as “across-the-board ang pow scheme to all companies” as SIMPLE says above and likely have the effect of past CPF cuts. Taking into account the size of our reserves and the general size of the Budget and given that the KTM is no a fan of unemployment benefits, $4.9 billion seems okay to him.
about 1 year ago
::::You’re not very friendly leh. Invite you to my KT stall to lim kopi, you never come.:::
Aiyoh I did not receive your invitation leh.
::::Truthfully, the KTM frankly isn’t sure that JCS WILL work. He is however completely baffled why people seem SO DARN SURE that it WILL NOT work.::::
No. Look at what Low is asking he is asking if it is effective. I think it is a legitimate question given the amount spent. The PAP could have demolish his arguments and those of Siew Kum Hong by showing stronger evidence. Now we are all guessing. You, me, the PAP….and we are arguing over who has the better guess without any supporting evidence. That is why we are still arguing. As there is also no targets, quantifiable numbers, whatever or nothing happens in the next few months we will be having this same argument at the next budget.
::::Let’s look at the facts staring at us: Jobs die die will be lost. Some of the fellas retrenched will be locals. How to keep the locals employed? Only two ways…..::::
KTM your logic is the same as the PAP..and the thinking process by the govt has already been outlined in a Today article. 1) Govt wants to save Singaporean jobs 2) Other than civil service hiring the next option is to cut business cost 3) The best option to cut cost is cut wages because it is linked to jobs 4) CPF cuts or wage subsidy? 5) Wage subsidy because it is less painful.
That is why Lim Swee Say counter to Low Thia Kiang was “cut CPF or JCS”. It is along the same narrow thinking process. When Low said neither. It is like “what?”…you offer no alternative so this is the best.
You repeated this same logic again and again in your blog.
One thing I have to say is you explained the govt’s case better than many of the PAP MPs who
don’t seem to understand their own policies. Please lah stop saying I don’t understand you okay…I may not
be smart, but I’m not that dumb lah. There is one feature I like about it is it tries to move Singaporeans ahead
of foreigners….but there is a still a 5% gap..
The JCS is a “no-other better idea” idea with unknown effectiveness….so lets do it anyway because
it might work?…
Okay lah..the govt tried its best. Nobody could come up with better idea so lets just go and spend
this $4.5B for wage subsidies…any jobs saved will be precious.
I say heck. This crisis is so big and the demand collapse is so bad this JCS will do almost nothing for improve joblessness.
I’ve not seen any evidence that prove otherwise..lets give some of this $4.5B to those who are
most affected directly and save some lives. That I know for sure will help the family who can no longer afford the lights,
who cannot to eat proper meals and is under distress. I know with 100% certainty that the money will help them vs giving wage subsidy
to Microsoft which as so much cash in the bank.
I support SPUR and a number of other measures. I’ve been watching this crisis
from the front row and keeping in touch with 10-20 friends from different industries.
It is a sincere opinion that this crisis is just too big for jobs to be saved via JCS.
I prefer the govt direct more resources to tackle the more dire consequences of this crisis which it joblessness.
You can’t just ignore the sick because you think you have done something to prevent diseases.
At this point all I can do is agree to disagree. The way to be settle is to provide some survey data to be used for
some deeper analysis which nobody did that piece of homework.
about 1 year ago
To KTM & Aaron & all,
You ask what’s an alternative scheme to JCS to save jobs, preferably retaining local workers and letting FWs go first. Begin with the End in Mind and First thing First, says the management guru Steve Covey.
So using these principles, the End (target) is to keep more jobs for locals if an employer has to downsize and retrench some of lts workers. So why not have a scheme to give a total sum of $1200 (spread over 4 quarters just like the JCS) to the employer per worker retrenched who is not a local. . This way the employer will be incentivised to retrench FWs first. The result is direct as targetted and measureable. Such a scheme will cost the govt only a small sum of S$60 million for every 50,000 workers retrenched who are non-locals. To plug any exploitation, the quarterly payments to an employer under this scheme will be reduced pro-rata by the number of new FWs employed after the scheme becomes operative. This also shows the great extent of leakages and ineffectiveness inherent in the JCS which hands much of the $4800,000 millions to companies which are wealthy or not financially troubled than to save jobs. Did the young turks that eureka the JCS or the President and his Advisory Council who assessed the JCS think about this or any other cheaper alternatives? Of course if the govt’s intention is different from that of saving jobs for locals then this scheme will obviously not achieve it.
Part or all of the balance of the $4.8 billion allocated for JCS can be rechannelled to a new scheme to provide help to the growing pool of retrenched local workers and unemployed, to increase the size of the Support Family Scheme budget and the other budgets to help companies, or saved for future off-budget measures.
Will this work and will you support if I submit this suggestion to the press?
about 1 year ago
@Lucky,
Aiyoh I did not receive your invitation leh.
Got lah. Left a comment in one of your posts. Maybe you missed it. Nevermind, Aaron’s kopi tiam also works.
You, me, the PAP….and we are arguing over who has the better guess without any supporting evidence.
The KTM is not arguing that the JCS is effective. Since when? Even in his very first post on the JCS, he only said that the JCS was interesting, but dunno whether effective or not. What the KTM is merely arguing is that most of the arguments against the JCS are pretty bogus.
You, LTK and Siew Kum Hoong are all overstating your cases. You are making claims you cannot possibly support and there are holes in your arguments. That’s all.
KTM your logic is the same as the PAP..and the thinking process by the govt has already been outlined in a Today article.
Izzit? Maybe the KTM really got some potential to become a mind reader… but then again, maybe the argument is obvious?
It is along the same narrow thinking process. When Low said neither. It is like “what?”…you offer no alternative so this is the best.
You repeated this same logic again and again in your blog.
But this is good logic isn’t it and minimally the KTM is consistent? If people can offer better alternatives, then we talk. If people got no ideas, why are they wasting our time?
I may not be smart, but I’m not that dumb lah.
Of course you’re not stupid lah. If you’re stupid, you think the KTM will waste time engaging you meh?
The JCS is a “no-other better idea” idea with unknown effectiveness….so lets do it anyway because it might work?…
No, the logic here is that the “JCS seems to be sound and it seems plausible that it will work, so let’s try it….:” The KTM doesn’t buy your arguments that it is not effective. Not to say that JCS is necessarily effective. You just haven’t been convincing that it’s not.
I say heck. This crisis is so big and the demand collapse is so bad this JCS will do almost nothing for improve joblessness. I’ve not seen any evidence that prove otherwise..lets give some of this $4.5B to those who are most affected directly and save some lives. That I know for sure will help the family who can no longer afford the lights, who cannot to eat proper meals and is under distress. I know with 100% certainty that the money will help them vs giving wage subsidy to Microsoft which as so much cash in the bank.
The argument that you’d prefer the money to go the poor rather than the corporations completely cuts no ice with the KTM.
The KTM has said before he doesn’t think we should bring in this issue about paying for lights into the JCS argument. If you can prove to the KTM that JCS is not effective, the KTM will say, let’s keep the money in the reserves.
The policy to help the hard luck cases should be independent of the recession. During a recession, we just have more people who qualify for help.
I support SPUR and a number of other measures. I’ve been watching this crisis from the front row and keeping in touch with 10-20 friends from different industries.
Who are these people? Are they employers or employees? BTW, SPUR is just unemployment benefit in disguise as far as the KTM is concerned. He is quite skeptical about the benefits of training.
It is a sincere opinion that this crisis is just too big for jobs to be saved via JCS.
You’re entitled to have your opinion. You’re just not sufficiently convincing to the KTM that you’re right. The fact that you’re pushing your agenda for greater social subsidies actually reduces your credibility with the KTM.
At this point all I can do is agree to disagree. The way to be settle is to provide some survey data to be used for some deeper analysis which nobody did that piece of homework
As always lah.
The KTM wants to say that he understands your point. He just cannot agree with your arguments. We can kiv this and discuss again in 6 months to a year when the numbers are available, IF they are available. The KTM has earlier outlined the obvious difficulties in collecting meaningful data to assess the effectiveness of the JCS.
.
about 1 year ago
@SIMPLE,
You’ve said the smartest thing that the KTM has heard in the entire debate. A simple reply wouldn’t do your comment justice, hence http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/2009/02/idea-to-offload-foreigners-more-cheaply.html.
Your thinking is quite out of the box. The KTM unfortunately cannot support your proposal for reasons explained in his post.
Nevertheless, the KTM would encourage you to submit your idea to the press. After all, this is about the only vaguely reasonable “alternative” any one has been able to come up with. The KTM would like to see the MOF fellas earn their pay and respond to your suggestion.
Finally, your letter would also serve to double (triple?) the intellectual level of the Forum Page on the day it’s published.
about 1 year ago
Aiyah KTM,
I compliment KTM. He very generous in praise and also open-minded. But KTM must be working veri hard with your wok. I think the heat and fumes make you a little blur and light headed. You must take it easy and relac. Perhaps take a course under SPUR. You know they have courses like Logical Thinking and English Comprehension. I am not suggesting that you need these but you also agree that no one is perfect, right and you can of course take the advanced versions. I already gone there to learn outside-box thinking and it helps. You also can take that course. The more the merrier – you will have longer breaks from your char-ing and govt still give you money to apy for cost and
allownace for you. Limited promotion period only so quickly.
KTM, why simple calculation also dono even after I give formula. Maybe times-table is easier for you, so here goes. If every plate of KT with 50k hums you sell for $60M, 6 plates with 300k hums you will sell for? $300m isn’t it. Now you also know $4.8 B equals $4800M. So the savings based on 300k jobs is 94% and not just only 70-80% – not too little, right? We can all shake legs, no need to fry anymore and go round the world every week for the rest of our lives with that kind of savings – $4500M. This savings as I said can be used to fund existing and other additional schemes in helping companies and locals or saved for more off-budgets later. Better than giving ang pows to every tom dick and harry without knowing what they do with the money. What if they still fire some workers and then go to Bali or shopping in HK, flying Garuda to save cost or stinch it. Then even our economi also no benefit and our reserve money for JCS also go down the drain.
Aiyah, so many of your comments I confuse and dono where to start and end. Maybe after your courses you will read my original scribe in a refreshed lite and then all you reservations will auto clear up.
Just one last comment on gymnastic thinking. Tell govt to call the scheme I have suggested with a spin. They already smart and spin Ang-Pow scheme and call it the JCS. They smart and wouldn’t can’t call this “Fire the FWs Credit Scheme” because they also appreciate that’s politikal suicide. Just spin it as “The Bon-Voyage Farewell Appreciation Scheme for FWs” and condition that employers should share 50% with the departing FWs. You see the point now – it is a win-win all round. Govt save money, FWs and employers get ang-pows and local workers get to keep their jobs. and we the people can also hope to get some more ang-pows from the savings. Oh, yes Positive Thinking is another course I took.
Chin up my friend. Under my scheme it is more rewarding for an employer, if he has to retrench, to fire his local workers last and, if he is hiring more new workers, to hire local workers first. (refer to the condition I had imposed).
Chow, I have to run now for my HM (Hokkien Mee) course. In future you may call me HMM.
about 1 year ago
SIMPLE,
Sounds good. You are probably right to say that the heat and fumes clouds the KTM’s brain and he cannot count properly.
The KTM will look out for your letter in the Forum Page.
about 1 year ago
KTM,
I would have concluded on differences simply as you think JCS is plausible and I think it is not. However, you have to make cheapshot accusations that Siew, Low and I have put out bogus accusations against the JCS. Look.. it is the govt that is spending this $4.5B on a highly pro-business policy, Low and Siew are not doing their work if the do not press the govt for more convincing evidence that it will work. In fact the bogus arguments came from LSS, “CPF or JCS?”…and other proponents of JCS.
::::The fact that you’re pushing your agenda for greater social subsidies actually reduces your credibility with the KTM::
My only agenda is to maximise benefits to as many Singaporeans in the long with our limited resource.
The budget is not about jobs or the economy. It is about people, Singaporeans. Look if Singaporeans are cash rich and have enough savings to survive this, I say heck lets do nothing . People work not to fill jobs but to put food on the table and have money for electricity. This is being a budget responding to the crisis – has to be about how people live through and survive this crisis. Since my position is that the JCS is not going to work, it follows that we have to tackle the problem when people become jobless and are out of savings.
I’ve not slip in any agenda. It is the govt that has not address all the relevant issues adequately.
about 1 year ago
Yo Kiddo
Already told u that u kissed arse too early.
STATS, among others, just gave JCS the finger.
Now it is unlikely the gahmen will actually spend $4.5B.
even if they spend $4.5B, it is actually loose change compared to the surplus of the last few years.
The JCS looks big to YOU but it is really the equivalent of Tar-man buying a couple of TOTO tickets hoping to get lucky. Actually I now think it is a good thing. He will have funds for a $20B off budget measures.
In fact, NOTHING he does will save jobs.
Unless, he replaces a certain Mr Geithner who looks like he is going to doom us all.
I dun like Tar-man but I do ack that he is one of the best in the business.
about 1 year ago
Bacteria,
:::::Geithner who looks like he is going to doom us all.:::::
After watching this feller in action 2 days ago, I would have to say it was a really horrid performance – announcing a half bake idea without details to a market that was already so nervous. I think he is going to make his predecessor look very good and competent. Oh Hank Paulson, we are going so miss you.
The main thing I remember from Geithner was : this will take long, there are no easy answers, the system is badly damaged….oh boy so much for confidence building.
Yes, we know….and the JCS will be a small speck in the black hole of demand collapse in the months to come…
about 1 year ago
@Lucky,
However, you have to make cheapshot accusations that Siew, Low and I have put out bogus accusations against the JCS.
What cheapshot? The KTM spent one lousy weekend explain why he doesn’t agree with Siew, Low and you.
Look.. it is the govt that is spending this $4.5B on a highly pro-business policy, Low and Siew are not doing their work if the do not press the govt for more convincing evidence that it will work.
It’s more than that right? Siew, Low and you are claiming that it doesn’t work and not just asking for more evidence right?
Or maybe the KTM cannot read.
The budget is not about jobs or the economy. It is about people, Singaporeans. Look if Singaporeans are cash rich and have enough savings to survive this, I say heck lets do nothing
Yeah, the Budget however is also about a balance between the present and the future. There are those who believe that unemployment benefits is the right policy — but there are also those who believe that keeping people employed is the long-term answer.
This is being a budget responding to the crisis – has to be about how people live through and survive this crisis.
Since you like evidence, perhaps the KTM can ask you for evidence that a lot of people will DIE if there are no unemployment benefits?
I’ve not slip in any agenda. It is the govt that has not address all the relevant issues adequately
This is what you are saying: JCS will not work, so let’s give the money to the people. This is what the KTM is saying: if you prove that JCS doesn’t work, then let’s not touch the reserves at all. The KTM was never a fan of dipping into the reserves to begin with.
about 1 year ago
Lucky Tan,
.
I was kind of led to this site when I was reading about the debates of the JCS.
.
Following the threads of arguments here kind of confirm my skepticism in commenting on the subject. As you put it very well:
.
== Economics unfortunately is not an exact science and plenty of it depends on how companies behave. At the end of the day, the outcome will determine if this policy is effective. [# Lucky Tan on 10 Feb 2009 at 1:35 pm] ==
.
I would only venture into the debate about the merits of JCS insofar as I agree with your assessment and don’t really see the merits of Aaron’s or KTM argument. But that’s my opinion anyway.
.
What I would say about the nature of the debate on JCS, as reflected here, is the cross-wired communications.
.
(a) On the one hand, your camp’s (you and low’s) view are talking about the efficiency and effectiveness of the policy given the dynamics of the situation as it stands. As you have rightly pointed out the implementers and supporter of the policy has not or yet able to quantify the cost-effectiveness [even give a guesstimate], so one can only wonder. For that matter, pro-JCS people seemed to change its aim of the policy at whim, one day it is to save jobs, another day it is to cut business cost, another to give the local job seeker a level playing field vis-a-vis foreign workers.
.
(b) On the other hand, you have the Aaron’s and KTM’s view, which broadly represents what I would say more of an ideological stands. I won’t necessarily say that it is pro-PAP as such but much of the arguments in this camp seemed to flow hey, if the intention of the policy is good, why question it.
.
So I guess at the end of the day, I supposed the only outcome of the debate is possibly a case of agree to disagree!
about 1 year ago
Hi KTM
You used to be more balanced but … anyway this trickle down pro-business PAP/Republican ideology is precisely why the brown stuff is hitting the ceiling :-p
Believe it or not, HDB (and other loan) defaults are already creeping up. But Lucky worries too much about the people dropping like flies. If Tar-man dun cough out the $$$ for the masses … the Workers Party(or whoever the fills the void left by PAP) will do it for him.
Out of curiousity, what do YOU think the reserves is for? To fill up some hole in the ground?
Hi PAP Kid
Good news! Mr Teo is comparing us with Canada and talking about Afghan War on Terror. Check out the Leopards. Cool! Maybe YOU can volunteer to lead our boys in green to a swift and decisive victory over the talibans who (last I checked) is fewer than either the boys up north or down south.
about 1 year ago
Often, people (especially economists) forget that economics is ultimately about people, not a gdp figure, or whatever statistic.
I would have no doubts that the JCS will have a better impact on our gdp statistic (since it is directly accounted as wages or better profits) than government handouts.
The reason for saving jobs is so that hardworking Singaporeans can continue to put food on their tables thru productive means.
However this arguments starts to run thin if people have no means to put food on the table, regardless of how hardworking and productive they are.
Our aggregate demand is largely exogeneous… it’s generally not within our control as they’re mostly from exports. In the past recessions, there are still means to reach out to other markets when we face a drop in demand from one part of the world (i.e. Asian crisis).
Today, no one in the world is buying anything! And there’s nothing we can do about all of them not wanting to buy, unless we have some very good marketer somewhere out there, and that our whole labour force can change their skill sets overnight to cater to this narrow group of demand.
Our reserves are a result of the hard-earned savings and sacrifices made by Singaporeans. If Singaporeans can’t have access to them now directly, then when will they ever get to benefit from it in the future?
Well… I guess much of Singaporean’s troubles boil down to a general attitude prevalent in our culture (especially amongst elitst ranks) right now – that we treat our KPIs as an end itself, not a means.
about 1 year ago
Tan Ah Kow,
Well said.
‘So I guess at the end of the day, I supposed the only outcome of the debate is possibly a case of agree to disagree!’
I am concerned about the points brought forth by Lucky Tan as well but given the lack of information and the gravity of the situation, I think the JCS is worth a shot. Sure it’s expensive and may or may not succeed, but I think we have a case here of a if we don’t do the operation the patient’s condition will deteriorate but if we operate, we have an X percent chance of improving the condition with an expensive operation. For me, the X figure is within my threshold so I say go ahead; for others, the X figure is not.
If the JCS is indeed proven to be ineffective and a massive waste of money later, I’ll be the first one to say I’m wrong.
about 1 year ago
RSE,
The efficiency has to be really low for to save only, say, 30,000 jobs as estimated by some economists. Is the cheng hu really that stupid, or are they real off with their numbers?
about 1 year ago
tee,
Good point. What’s the point of saving if it’s not going to be used? However, I think Lucky Tan has also pointed this out, we don’t know how bad things will be and whether the JCS will work, but if eventually the JCS doesn’t work, will the government be willing to take out the reserves to support Singaporeans through a period of demand collapse? Like him, I certainly pray so.
about 1 year ago
Aaron,
.
Interestingly, you use this medical analogy to frame your argument:
.
==Sure it’s expensive and may or may not succeed, but I think we have a case here of a if we don’t do the operation the patient’s condition will deteriorate but if we operate, we have an X percent chance of improving the condition with an expensive operation. For me, the X figure is within my threshold so I say go ahead; for others, the X figure is not. == [# Aaron Ng on 13 Feb 2009 at 3:08 pm]
.
I am probably going on hazardous path now, but let me expand on your analogy.
.
Question: In the current context of the JCS, who in your analogy equates to a patient? By patient, do you equate it to businesses or people who are jobless?
.
In my opinion, the analogy you have used kind of, how shall I put it delicately…..miss the picture somewhat, so to speak.
.
The analogy you are making out assumes a scenario where a doctor is confronted with one patient and the doctor’s course of action is a choice of one procedure over another. The condition at which the JCS is supposed to operate in is not like that. In a situation where businesses are suffering because cost is driving factor (e.g. China low cost sucking jobs from Singapore but that is not what is happening now as Lucky points out even low cost countries are suffering) than it could be argue your analogy is accurate. So I have to say your analogy is somewhat high on the straw man count!
.
You see the problem that JCS is trying to solve is somewhat akin to a scenario where a doctor has to decide between two patients. Should the doctor save one or the other? In the JCS case, is it to “save” businesses or people?
.
Whilst I do not speak for Lucky, WP’s Low and other critics of the JCS, the argument as I understands it is about the wisdom of applying such a treatment to a patent where the outcome (or disease) is unknown (i.e. we don’t know if the money is going to help the businesses or worst the treatment itself is not right for the problem) when treatment could be given to patient where outcome is more clearer (jobless people can feed their family).
.
As for yours, KTM and pro-JCS views, I am of the impression that there is a serious case of missing the forest because of too much focus on the trees.
about 1 year ago
Tan Ah Kow,
You are right that analogies are hazardous paths. I shouldn’t even have gone there in the first place. But since we are already going down the slippery slope, let’s just see how far we slide downwards!
To my knowledge, the JCS is designed to help companies retain Singaporean workers and not to keep ailing ones afloat. So I don’t see how the choice is between choosing between saving business or people. It was all along meant to save people. I could be misreading your entry, though. Please correct me if I am.
Slipping down the slope further, the question of whether to give money to people via businesses (this is JCS) or directly seems to me to be a case of choosing between competing brands of anesthetic to perform the medical procedure. Either way, we don’t know the outcome, i.e. whether jobs can be saved.
I think maybe we are discussing on parallel lines here. If the eventual goal is for jobless people to feed their families, then a direct handout is indeed better. If the goal is to prevent people from being jobless in the first place, then maybe JCS is better.
Aiyah, this is giving me a headache. My mind is in knots liao.
about 1 year ago
KTM,
::::perhaps the KTM can ask you for evidence that a lot of people will DIE if there are no unemployment benefits::::
Oh goodness I’m suppose to show you dying people for you agree to jobless benefits. Please lah this is getting absurd. Most of the hardship stories in parliament are told by PAP MPs anyway. Eat maggie mee also can survive lah, by the time I can show you dying people…no need to talk leow.
How much should people suffer before they should get direct help can get talk until cow come home also cannot settle….but you KTM takes the cake, you want to see dying people. You criteria more stringent …damn absolute….
People will suffer before they start dying, the rest of the humans are arguing when help should arrive to ease the suffering – a lot of suffering?…a little suffering?….But you KTM wants to see dying people.
::::: that JCS is not effective, the KTM will say, let’s keep the money in the reserves.::::
You mean put it back with Temasek Holdings which just lost $58B in 6(?) months investing in crappy banks and to this day refuse to have any meaningful transparency. I think hor…JCS is not too bad an idea compared with risking this money with Temasek….it might just go into another Shin Corp or ABC Learning.
about 1 year ago
Aaron,
Don’t worry much about the JCS and how effective it is. 4.5 billion is indeed a (very expensive) drop in the bucket compared to what is at stake. 30,000 jobs is a little on the generous side if you ask me for my personal estimate, however, that figure isn’t very far off.
I was hoping if the government dipped into the reserves for the first time, it would have been for something more… sound
. Maybe even something crazy, and inspiring that could just work and change Singapore for the better. Instead, it was for some expensive stopgap measure that has near zero chance of ‘working’, whatever ‘work’ means… 
Oh well, can’t really expect too much, can we? Just enjoy the ride.
about 1 year ago
Aaron
.
On this point:
.
==To my knowledge, the JCS is designed to help companies retain Singaporean workers and not to keep ailing ones afloat. So I don’t see how the choice is between choosing between saving business or people. It was all along meant to save people. I could be misreading your entry, though. Please correct me if I am.[# Aaron Ng on 13 Feb 2009 at 6:02 pm] ==
.
I didn’t devise this JCS scheme so I don’t really know what is it for except from the name. But judging from the pronouncement, the objective of the scheme seemed to be shifting. One objective is to reduce business cost (i.e. indirectly incentivise business to keep employee), another is to save jobs directly, and another is to level out the cost of hiring Singaporean vis-a-vis foreigners. Which is which is anyone’s guess.
.
Anyway, as Lucky pointed out, if the policy makers are unwilling to put a number (albeit guesstimates) on the scheme, then how is one to measure the success or otherwise of the scheme. For example, when the Casino scheme was devised the policy makers were even prepared to stick their neck out by declaring how many jobs would be created. I have not yet seen a figure from the policy makers. Or maybe this policy is what I call “throwing money in the air and hoping it hands on target” type.
.
I leave it to you to interpret what I say. What I would say on this point raised by you, and hopefully clarify what I am saying, is this:
.
== Slipping down the slope further, the question of whether to give money to people via businesses (this is JCS) or directly seems to me to be a case of choosing between competing brands of anesthetic to perform the medical procedure. Either way, we don’t know the outcome, i.e. whether jobs can be saved. ==
.
The reality of the situation is this:
.
(a) The government (i.e. the Doctor) is NOW faced with people with no jobs and people POTENTIALLY(i.e. could be not has already) losing job at an UNPRECEDENTED level. So here we have two different kind of patients, so to speak, seeking treatment at the same time. Let’s call people with no job (i.e. the People) and people potentially losing job (i.e. the Business).
.
(b) The JCS was devised in the scenario (a) NOT in the scenario where, Businesses are potentially loosing (or shedding) jobs because of competitive pressure. So for all intent and purposes, the JCS, whether explicitly or implicitly, is intended to satisfy scenario (a). In other words, this would be akin to the scenario where Doctor has access to only ONE equipment (money) and having to decide whether to anaesthetise two different patients requiring anaesthetic at the same time. If we are talking about JCS in the context of competitive pressure, than that is akin to a scenario where only opatient requiring access to the one equipment. Clearly, if you want to discuss about effectiveness or ineffectiveness of JCS you must do it in that context. Otherwise, any debate about JCS becomes purely abstract devoid of context — i.e. JCS become the tree for debate but missing the forest.
.
(c) In the context of (b), the question then is whether money would be wisely spent on Business (i.e. people potentially loosing job) or the People (i.e. people whose jobs are already lost). That is akin to the Doctor having to decide whether he should prioritise the use of the anaesthetic equipment for someone who May or May NOT be having a say a fatal heart attack, or someone who already has a heart attack and needing surgery now (outcome already known)! Imagine if the doctor didn’t know if the person who May/May not have a heart attack has any symptom of one (i.e. outcome unknown and no evidence as basis to say what possible outcomes are). And the doctor than say, I am going to anaesthetise that person anyway because, even if he does not have any symptom I can be sure that least I have save the live of the person if he/she did indeed have a heart attack.
about 1 year ago
@bacteria,
You used to be more balanced but … anyway this trickle down pro-business PAP/Republican ideology is precisely why the brown stuff is hitting the ceiling :-p
Not sure what you mean by “used to be more balanced”. The KTM believes that he is actually fairly consistent and if you read the sorts of rubbish the KTM has been spouting, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the KTM’s econo-political stance is pro-business/moderate Republican and definitely not leftist Democrat by a long shot.
But frankly, such labelling is quite unhelpful ‘cos it gives the impression that there are only two possibilities, either Republican or Democrat. You’re either pro-business or pro-labour? Life is more complicated than that. People often have different positions re: different policies. Among all the socio-political views that the KTM has read about, he thinks his political views are closest to those of Warren Buffet, who strangely enough happens to be a registered Democrat. Unfortunately, that hasn’t translated to equivalent wealth.
Believe it or not, HDB (and other loan) defaults are already creeping up.
Yeah, that’s probably because HDB doesn’t dare foreclose, so the KTM really doesn’t understand what people are worried about. If HDB throws anyone out on the street in the middle of this Recession, the story will definitely find itself on the theonlinecitizen and then later the New Paper.
But Lucky worries too much about the people dropping like flies.
Strangely enough the KTM isn’t the least worried.
Out of curiousity, what do YOU think the reserves is for? To fill up some hole in the ground?
Pretty much. KTM is a miser and loves hoarding.
@Lucky,
Oh goodness I’m suppose to show you dying people for you agree to jobless benefits … You criteria more stringent …damn absolute….
Absolute numbers are easy to measure mah. Perhaps you can teach the KTM how to measure suffering?
In any case, the KTM isn’t being serious. Merely returning favour with your argument of “show me the numbers” .
What you think of the KTM’s suggeston of “show us how many will DIE” is exactly how the KTM thinks of your suggestion of showing effectiveness.
The KTM thinks that we probably don’t have much more to discuss with each other on the JCS and any further exchanges will probably be unhelpful verbal vibes so he will stop here. Been a pleasure discussing with issue with you.
Happy Valentines’ Day.
about 1 year ago
Tan Ah Kow,
I guess we have differing ideas about what the context should the analogy be applied in. Thanks for pointing out the various contexts in detail. I’ll spend some time thinking about the different contexts and revisit my thoughts on the JCS. That’s the least I can do to show my appreciation for you taking the time to explain yourself in such a detailed manner.
Happy Valentine’s Day!
about 1 year ago
hi KTM
I guess you dun follow US politics (check put the Republican voting on the stimulus) but Buffet’s old man was Republican Congressman.
Lucky is a left leaning millionaire. Like Buffet on a smaller scale (apparently).
KTM is right leaning not-so-rich everyman (or so he says). Like Joe the Plumber (apparently).
about 1 year ago
bacteria,
I guess you dun follow US politics (check put the Republican voting on the stimulus) but Buffet’s old man was Republican Congressman.
I’m well aware that Buffet’s old man was a Republican Congressman thank you.
KTM is right leaning not-so-rich everyman (or so he says). Like Joe the Plumber (apparently).
The KTM is not yet a billionaire lah, but he doubts he’s your everyday Joe the Plumber. Did the KTM every make any claims on his wealth? He just said that he’s not as rich as Buffet.
You are the one who seems to be completely misinformed about Buffet’s views and political philosophy. Lucky doesn’t talk anything like Buffet. You think Buffet will agree to unemployment benefits like what Lucky is proposing? Go and learn something before you come back.
about 1 year ago
:::Lucky doesn’t talk anything like Buffet. You think Buffet will agree to unemployment benefits like what Lucky is proposing?:::
What have I proposed??? I don’t remember proposing anything other than giving help to those who cannot survive without.
I’ve not heard Buffett say anything about jobless benefits and Obama whom he supports is not against jobless benefits.
My thoughts are this:
1. It is easy to argue against giving jobless benefits using disincentive to work, abuse, unsustainability etc. Heck if JCS can help everyone who needs a job to get one why bother to help the jobless.
2. There is only reasons to help the jobless NECESSITY and it has to be good for our society in the long run.
3. If people can survive without aid, then forget it. …but is that the case? People can’t even survive with jobs that is why the govt gives out workfare to supplement their income. Workfare itself have the similar problem as welfare – it is a disincentive for people to seek out higher skill jobs, go for training and the govt is giving this extra money for no extra work. Why did they do it because it was NECESSARY.
4. Why do I think it will be necessary for direct help the jobless? The low savings and high debt levels prior to the recession. During the non-recession period we can help the jobless by finding jobs for them, retrain them for new jobs and there will be light at the end of the tunnel.
5. My point is the time will come soon when direct aid is necessary because there will be people unable to find a job and have exhausted their savings…because of the length of this recession and they have mouths to feed….this is the worst recession in our lifetime….we have to be prepared for the worst as a society.
about 1 year ago
Lucky,
I’ve not heard Buffett say anything about jobless benefits and Obama whom he supports is not against jobless benefits.
Then go and read more. Just because Buffett supports Obama doesn’t mean that he will agree with all Obama’s policies. Perhaps if the Republican had someone better than McCain to offer, Buffett might not have supported Obama? Let’s not go into the domain of mind reading. Suffices to say that the KTM believes that given his understand of Buffett’s econo-political views, Buffett is unlikely to be a support of unemployment benefits. The KTM would be keen to learn otherwise.
1. It is easy to argue against giving jobless benefits using disincentive to work, abuse, unsustainability etc. Heck if JCS can help everyone who needs a job to get one why bother to help the jobless.
KTM’s view: if jobless people really need help, go and see MP. MPs actually have access to quite a large amount of money through the ComCare Fund if the KTM is not wrong. MPs should also learn their pay by deciding who needs help and how much on a case-by-case basis.
2. There is only reasons to help the jobless NECESSITY and it has to be good for our society in the long run.
Couldn’t parse this point. Don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
3. If people can survive without aid, then forget it. …but is that the case? People can’t even survive with jobs that is why the govt gives out workfare to supplement their income. Workfare itself have the similar problem as welfare – it is a disincentive for people to seek out higher skill jobs, go for training and the govt is giving this extra money for no extra work. Why did they do it because it was NECESSARY.
Demonstrate to the KTM that people cannot survive with a job. The KTM doesn’t see people drop like flies when they have a job. Yes, some people have to struggle, but such is life what. Is the Govt’s job to ENSURE that everyone has a good life? The KTM doesn’t think so. Some people definitely deserve what they get.
4. Why do I think it will be necessary for direct help the jobless? The low savings and high debt levels prior to the recession. During the non-recession period we can help the jobless by finding jobs for them, retrain them for new jobs and there will be light at the end of the tunnel.
Refer to Point 1 above. Go and see MP. We also need to create jobs for the MPs.
5. My point is the time will come soon when direct aid is necessary because there will be people unable to find a job and have exhausted their savings…because of the length of this recession and they have mouths to feed….this is the worst recession in our lifetime….we have to be prepared for the worst as a society.
No, we have to PREVENT this point from coming. That’s the KTM’s view.
Agree that this is a HUGE CHALLENGE given that many countries, including the US, have failed, but we still have to try. The KTM still nurses this hope that it is possible to avert the scenario you’re painting.
In any case, did the thought of BORROWING even come to mind? People are asking for BAILOUTs, which the KTM doesn’t like ‘cos it creates a moral hazard. The KTM will stop here. Still owes you a long exposition against handouts.
about 1 year ago
KTM,
::::KTM’s view: if jobless people really need help, go and see MP. MPs actually have access to quite a large amount of money through the ComCare Fund if the KTM is not wrong. MPs should also learn their pay by deciding who needs help and how much on a case-by-case basis. ::::
.
Have you been paying attention in the recent parliament sitting?! The PAP MPs whom the people are seeing are citing numerous examples of people ruled out due to various criteria. It is the MPs who are saying they can’t get help for the people they feel deserve help. Why was Lily Neo scream in parliament a few months ago? These are PAP MPs and I applaud every single one of them for doing their jobs.
.
:::::Demonstrate to the KTM that people cannot survive with a job. The KTM doesn’t see people drop like flies when they have a job. Yes, some people have to struggle, but such is life what. Is the Govt’s job to ENSURE that everyone has a good life?::::
.
Now I see very clearly were we disagree. On how much our fellow Singaporeans have to suffer before the govt step in. People like I said can survive on maggie mee. …but I would throw in electricity, water, proper meals, children’s education, etc which I consider basic necessities. The govt does not ENSURE people have a good life …just that they don’t suffer unnecessarily. Already we see the stats on 30,000(from memory) households defaulting on their utilities bill, may be they are not dying but there is enormous financial strain. Is the govt suppose to help these people with their problems? It is after all their problems…but many of these people have just fallen through because cost of living went up much faster than their income.
.
:::No, we have to PREVENT this point from coming. That’s the KTM’s view. :::
.
I also HOPE…but have you seen the latest export numbers…please visit my blog. It is bleak, black, ugly and not a glimmer of hope. Shouldn’t ` we play it safer? Make sure the people are okay 1st? I can understand the moral hazards and the slippery slope…but I also see unnecessary distress of innocent victims of this crisis. They can go to the MPs. ..but it is the MPs whose hands are tied. The last crisis people went to the MP, the MP had a thick cheque book, he gives $50, $100 ..based on the story of the person there tells him. For $50, the person might skip the doctor and have no lights.
.
KTM, lets not see any dead bodies. Struggling families – stories aplenty from social workers and the children are adversely impacted. As we err on the side of caution and conservative values, this is the biggest crisis of our lifetime…my suggestion is we should be worried about doing too little to help.
about 1 year ago
Lucky.
Why was Lily Neo scream in parliament a few months ago?
Beats the KTM. Maybe her hairdo costs more than PA? The KTM’s view: these fellas dunno what’s going on and they are trying scoring political points. Or perhaps they want more people on PA, so that they dun have to visit them during the MPS and they have less to do.
The KTM has spoken to quite number of social workers who work directly with the poor and elderly. Around 10.? Their UNANIMOUS view was that the PA is sufficient ‘cos there are MANY sources of help available. The KTM is just some random kaypoh (not the Finance Minister in disguise) so these social workers have no reason to lie to the KTM.
Do you work with the poor and elderly on PA? Have you spoken with social workers who do? Pls don’t lecture the KTM from your armchair.
Already we see the stats on 30,000(from memory) households defaulting on their utilities bill, may be they are not dying but there is enormous financial strain. Is the govt suppose to help these people with their problems?
They should go and learn how to deal. Costs of living going up, going down regardless. Just wait for the KTM’s post on handouts.
Make sure the people are okay 1st?
This recession will likely last 2 or 3 years. Beyond that, it becomes a Depression and we can deal accordingly.
For now, people should go and learn how to cope with seasonal economic downturns. The Govt should try its best as the KTM believes it has done to ensure that jobs are kept.
There is a need for INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Our people are already very wimpy and un-hungry. Your proposals will exacerbate the situation and make them even more UNCOMPETITIVE when the recession lifts.
Struggling families – stories aplenty from social workers and the children are adversely impacted.
There is however one thing that we agree about – and that’s the children. *sigh* The KTM believes that we should do more for the children – while the grown ups should go and learn how to deal. The conundrum however is how to give more targeted aid to the young.
about 1 year ago
::::The KTM’s view: these fellas dunno what’s going on and they are trying scoring political points.::::
.
So they are just 2-face politicians making populist remarks by citing isolated rare cases. Gee PAP MPs I should have known better than to believe them!!!
.
::::The KTM has spoken to quite number of social workers who work directly with the poor and elderly. Around 10.? Their UNANIMOUS view was that the PA is sufficient ‘cos there are MANY sources of help available::::
You say PA is sufficient…I say it is not. It is subjective. You say eat maggie mee can survive, I say man needs more than maggie me. There is not much to talk further we all know what the amount is for PA. You can survive on that I cannot so I must be one pampered human.
::::This recession will likely last 2 or 3 years. Beyond that, it becomes a Depression and we can deal accordingly::::
I think giving aid is not just the flick of a switch – lets give aid tomorrow. The system has to be in place, the debates on how to do it has to take place as a society we have to know how, who, when to help and the people need to know what is in place so they can also help themselves. See the govt has this way of saying everything is in place…but you go to the ground…there are many issues. Get workfare must contribute to CPF – end up with less cash to spend on necessities….and so on.
I’m doing a piece on rental flats – and it will show just how complex putting help in the hands of the people who need it is. The PAP govt approach to minimise abuse actually end up deny flats for people who need it. You can read Leong Sze Hian’s article in online citizen on that but I will explore this further.
In recent years, the govt has been “forced” to give help. With their philosophical leanings, this is something they won’t do unless necessary. So Comcare, Workfare, etc have been put forth but I think it is always one step behind. You can say nobody is dead yet, it is good for people to struggle a little. But I think it is more like people are struggling a lot when you see 8% defaults on HDB and 30,000 defaults on utilities. I prefer the root cause which I believe is the income gap be solved first then we will have very little of the other problems….but we have been struggling with a ballooning income gap for more than a decade – now the govt has to fix the consequences of that.
.
I did in the past write about the need to do more…and indeed the govt has done more but not at the pace that I felt was needed. But the time for being slow and conservative is over with this sharp and deep crisis. We run the risk of being too late and we are talking about disruption to people’s lives here. The govt is either there or not there when the people need help. It is their time to show leadership, jump ahead of the problems that are coming…and I think the people will appreciate.
.
If they wait and see, be reactive lets see the problems first then give out aid according – this is very optimal from a resource management point of view….but they are going to face exactly the same issues they did with the handling of the Lehman minibonds issue. Even if it was resolved at the end, people will remember the lack of leadership in the beginning.
:::::There is a need for INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Our people are already very wimpy and un-hungry. Your proposals will exacerbate the situation and make them even more UNCOMPETITIVE ::::
When a person needs help, some help has to be given, regardless of how he got to that state. If your house is on fire, the fire man is not going to come and ask why you keep so much flamables in house to cause a fire.
There was this debate in the 1920s on whether putting erasers on pencils will cause people to make more mistakes. But they found out that productivity increases because people know they can correct their mistakes and will be able to write faster. During the campaign trail, someone asked Obama why should jobless benefits be given and whether it will cause people to be dependent. Obama replied that the society will be better off as a whole if people take some risk in their lives be it starting business, trying a new job etc. When they get into trouble, the state should step in and give some aid for them to move along but not too much to be too comfortable. Will flying trapeze be able to do triple summersault if there was no safety net to catch them if they fall?