Tag: poor

  • MPs Question Fiscal Sustainability Of Budget Schemes

    MPs Question Fiscal Sustainability Of Budget Schemes

    About a week after the Republic unveiled a Budget that was hailed by various quarters for its generosity and far-sightedness, several Members of Parliament (MPs) yesterday raised concerns about the Government’s fiscal sustainability, given that the projected spike in social spending coincides with a moderating economy.

    An ageing population would also mean less revenue that could be derived from taxes, they added, stressing that the Republic’s healthy reserves should not be taken for granted.

    In all, 25 MPs rose to speak during the first day of the Budget debate. Apart from concerns about fiscal sustainability, MPs generally welcomed Budget measures such as the SkillsFuture initiatives and the Silver Support Scheme, and offered suggestions on the implementation of the new programmes. They also highlighted the continuing struggle among businesses to raise productivity, but stressed the need to stay the course.

    The introduction of more social safety nets and other measures to mitigate social inequality prompted Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim to observe a “leftwards” shift.

    In particular, she said the Silver Support Scheme — which gives cash payouts to needy elderly — came as a surprise to most. “It embodies what the People’s Action Party government has always eschewed — having any form of rights-based, ‘defined benefits’ welfare scheme,” Ms Lim said. “Up to now, government assistance schemes were usually temporary and subject to continuous means-testing and conditions, with applicants needing to fill up forms and provide documentary proof of illness and family income.”

    She added: “This Budget explicitly talks about strengthening social safety nets. This suggests a shift to the left, a direction which I believe is right … A shift left does not necessarily undermine economic performance, but could well enhance it.”

    Holland-Bukit Timah GRC MP Liang Eng Hwa said the Budget signalled a further shift to the left, but this was possible only because “over the past 50 years, we have built a stronger and more sustainable financial position through careful budgeting and sheer discipline”.

    Still, Nominated MP (NMP) Chia Yong Yong urged prudence, quipping: “If we lean too much to the left, we will not have much left.”

    Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced during the Budget statement last Monday that Temasek Holdings will be included in the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework — joining GIC and the Monetary Authority of Singapore — so part of its projected long-term returns can be spent. Personal income taxes for the top 5 per cent income earners will also be raised. With these moves, the MPs felt the Republic has seemingly exhausted ways to boost its coffers, without raising taxes for the masses.

    West Coast GRC MP Foo Mee Har noted that this year’s budgeted expenditure was 19 per cent higher than that in the previous year.

    “While it is assuring to know that these expenditures can be provided for from current reserves accumulated since 2011, it appears that we have come to rely more and more on past reserves to fund our spending, and have now resorted to including Temasek in the NIR framework to make ends meet,” she said. “How will we know when we have gone too far, when we have crossed the line in fiscal prudence — that tried-and-tested principle that has seen Singapore through many economic crises?”

    Distributing a table showing figures from the Ministry of Finance, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair pointed out that if Singapore had not been drawing from its reserves via net investment income contributions, it would have run up “large deficits for a number of years”.

    Noting that government expenditure will continue to rise, he warned: “We are running out of levers to pull. After Temasek, there is no next.”

    He added: “Increasing taxes on the top 5 or even 10 per cent will get you only so far, and there will be considerable pressure on the Government not to raise taxes for everyone else … There will no doubt be calls on the Government to raise the NIR contribution beyond 50 per cent, but that means leaving behind less for our children, so where do we go from there?”

    Mr Liang suggested that the Government regularly review the country’s fiscal sustainability, with additional scrutiny and oversight on spending programmes that last longer than 10 years.

    With the economy moderating, NMP Randolph Tan said, ultimately, the fiscal strength to fund more social programmes would have to come from strong economic growth. “Singapore has to be cautious and prepare for the possibility that — unlike resource-rich and larger economies —slower growth may not turn out to be the idyllic experience we imagine,” he said. “By simultaneously drawing on surpluses, proposing a deficit and announcing a surprise rise in taxes on the wealthiest, this Budget gives us a glimpse of the stark realities we face.”

    The Budget debate continues today.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Singapore Is World’s Most Expensive City To Live In

    Singapore Is World’s Most Expensive City To Live In

    Singapore has topped the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) list of the world’s most expensive cities to live in, according to the 2014 list released yesterday (this morning, March 4, Singapore time).

    Singapore jumped five places from No 6 last year to top this year’s list after rising in the list in recent years. The city was ranked No 18 a decade ago in the EIU’s Worldwide Cost of Living Survey.

    The Republic’s strong currency, which has appreciated about 40 per cent over the past decade, combined with soaring utility bills and the high cost of car ownership contributed to Singapore’s rise in the list, according to the EIU. Singapore is also the most expensive place in the world to buy clothes.

    Paris, Oslo, Zurich and Sydney also made the top five of the EIU list. Tokyo, the most expensive city to live in for 2013, fell to joint sixth place alongside Caracas, Geneva and Melbourne. At No 10 is Copenhagen.

    “Improving sentiment in structurally expensive European cities combined with the continued rise of Asian hubs means that these two regions continue to supply most of the world’s most expensive cities,” said Mr Jon Copestake, the editor of the EIU report.

    “But Asian cities also continue to make up many of the world’s cheapest, especially in the Indian subcontinent.”

    Predominantly higher costs of groceries has been singled out as a reason for most Asian cities figuring highly in this year’s list, with Tokyo still at the top of the list for everyday food items.

    The EIU’s Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, which is published twice a year, compares more than 400 individual prices across 160 products and services including food, clothing, household supplies, home rentals, transport and utility prices. All cities are compared against New York City as a base.

    According to the EIU statement, the survey is meant to let human resource line managers and expatriate executives compare the cost of living in 140 cities in 93 countries, which would allow hiring companies to calculate a fair remuneration package for relocating employees.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • NUS Law Assistant Professor Convicted Of Assaulting 70 Year Old Taxi Driver

    NUS Law Assistant Professor Convicted Of Assaulting 70 Year Old Taxi Driver

    An assistant law professor with the National University of Singapore (NUS) assaulted a cabby over the change for a $20 fare, leaving him bloodied and in need of multiple stitches, a court heard yesterday.

    Sundram Peter Soosay, 43, had vomited in Mr Sun Chuan Hua’s vehicle in the wee hours of Christmas Day in 2013.

    He got out near King Albert Park in Bukit Timah and started to walk away without paying, but handed over a $50 note after the 70-year-old cabby chased him.

    It is alleged that Soosay then attacked Mr Sun from behind as he returned to the vehicle to retrieve the change, knocking him to the ground and punching him several times in the face and body, an incident that was seen by an eyewitness.

    In a trial that began yesterday, Mr Sun told the court he could smell alcohol on the breath of Soosay, who had boarded the cab along Serangoon North Avenue 1 to go to Clementi Road.

    To get the passenger to pay, Mr Sun said he asked him several times and touched him “lightly” on the arm. Soosay paid when Mr Sun threatened to make a police report.

    As he was walking back to his cab, someone hit him in the head, causing him to fall face down, said Mr Sun.

    He tried to get up but Soosay forced him back on the ground, sat astride him, and continued punching him in the face, the cabby claimed.

    Mr Sun, who needed 17 days of medical leave, told the court in Mandarin that he had got his taxi licence in 1983 and this had never happened to him before.

    The eyewitness claimed he saw the two men scuffle before the alleged assault.

    In his cross-examination of the witness, defence counsel Amarjit Singh said his client had walked away after the scuffle and did not attack the cabby. He suggested that the cabby had provoked Soosay by pushing him repeatedly in the back and throwing a punch of his own.

    Mr Sun will stay on the stand when hearing resumes on Feb 5.

    If convicted, Soosay, a permanent resident here, could be jailed for up to two years and fined up to $5,000.

    An NUS spokesman said Soosay joined the university in 2008. “NUS will await the conclusion of legal proceedings before determining what action, if any, should be taken.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Wealthiest 1% Globally Will Possess More Than Half Of Total Global Wealth In 2016

    Wealthiest 1% Globally Will Possess More Than Half Of Total Global Wealth In 2016

    The very rich are getting very richer.

    The wealthiest 1% of the world’s population will own more than half of total global wealth next year, according to projections released Monday by Oxfam International, the antipoverty advocacy group.

    And the richest 80 people in the world alone now possess more combined riches than do the poorest half of the world’s population, Oxfam reported, citing Credit Suisse CSGN.VX +1.23% and Forbes data.

    “Global wealth is becoming increasing(ly) concentrated among a small wealthy elite,” the Oxfam report said.

    In 2010, it would have taken the combined riches of the 388 top billionaires to equal the combined assets of the bottom 50% of the planet. But the billionaires’ assets have appreciated so quickly since then, and the total value of the poor’s resources has dropped so precipitously, that last year it took just the top 80 billionaires to equal the wealth of the bottom 3.5 billion people on the planet, Oxfam said.

    The wealthiest 80 people have a combined net worth of $1.9 trillion, up from $1.3 trillion in 2010, with the bulk of their fortunes coming from the financial, pharmaceutical and health care industries. More than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day, Oxfam said.

    The richest 20% of the population together hold 94.5% of the world’s wealth, Oxfam said. The poorest 80% of the world’s population share just 5.5%.

    “It is time our leaders took on the powerful vested interests that stand in the way of a fairer and more prosperous world,” Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam’s executive director, said in a written statement accompanying the report.

     

    Source:http://blogs.wsj.com

  • Security Guards Better To Be Seen Not Heard?

    Security Guards Better To Be Seen Not Heard?

    It was 7.45am when I reported for duty at the guardhouse of an upscale condominium in District 9, dressed in my uniform of white shirt and dark blue trousers.

    Mr Johari, a middle-aged guard who had been working there for two years, showed me the ropes and the first thing he said to me was: “Watch out for the cars.”

    He meant I would have to memorise some residents’ car registration numbers in a hurry if I was going to do the job right.

    Helpfully, he rattled off some critical numbers: 30, 166, 186, 2125. Those were the car numbers of residents who expected the guards to recognise them and lift the carpark barrier quickly when they approached.

    “They will complain if you are slow, like this one who is in the management committee,” he said, as a car drew up. I scribbled the numbers into a notebook.

    My supervisor, Mr Zaini, had another tip: “Make sure you smile.”

    He explained: “People staying here are all ‘somebodies’ and they want to be acknowledged. Don’t ask visitors their names or who they are visiting. They get offended.”

    It made me wonder why this condominium needed guards at all. Why not have a smiling robot of the sort being produced in Japan, that can recognise residents and car numbers? Or give residents remote controls to operate the barriers themselves?

    Mr Zaini said we guards play a role in providing security to the wealthy residents. “It gives them a sense of security to have uniformed guards around,” he said.

    The freehold condominium has only four-bedroom apartments and penthouses above 3,000 sq ft in size. The 100 units are spread out over four five-storey blocks in a sprawling compound about the size of a football field. Besides the swimming pool, gym and function room, it also has a yoga pavilion and lounge. All the apartments have private lifts.

    Over the past two years, some units changed hands for between $10.7 million and $27.5 million.

    Mr Johari told me about half the residents were Singaporeans and the rest were foreign tenants paying more than $15,000 a month in rent.

    The management council hired a private company to provide security guards. A 12-man guard team was assigned there, with six guards on duty on each 12-hour shift and shift changes at 8am and 8pm.

    Each 12-hour shift is further divided into one-hour blocks, with 11 hours of work and a one-hour meal break. The 11 one-hour blocks form a rotating roster, with five guards put on one of five tasks hourly: manning the main guard post, guarding the basement entrance of the clubhouse, operating the carpark barrier, watching CCTV cameras and patrolling the grounds.

    When it was time for my one-hour break at noon, Mr Johari led me to a small makeshift area in a corner of the basement carpark, next to a pump room and out of sight of residents. The stale smelling room was lit by a fluorescent tube. There were metal lockers, a wooden table with chipped corners and four plastic chairs, two of which were shaky. A desk fan provided some comfort.

    When I took my lunch break there, I could see Ferraris, Lamborghinis and a Bentley – some of the residents’ luxury cars – and we security guards had to make sure nobody sneaked pictures of them.

    The guards at this condominium are barred from using the common toilets in the clubhouse and swimming pool. They have their own, also in the basement carpark. It has one toilet bowl and a sink. During my two days there, it had no soap or toilet paper, and the tap was broken.

    Ms Amy, in her 50s, the only female guard in the team, said that she tries to avoid using the toilet and brings her own hand sanitiser.

    I was appalled, but my security guard colleagues did not seem to mind any of this. I brought my own toilet paper and wet wipes on Day 2.

    As a new guard, I was assigned unpopular tasks that kept me on my feet: operating the carpark barrier, guarding the clubhouse entrance and patrolling.

    What I liked least was having to spend an hour stuffing letterboxes with a notice about the swimming pool closure and checking at the start of the day that more than 500 light bulbs in the lift lobbies, walkways and carpark were working.

    For the effort, I was paid $70 a day. My fellow guards at the agency serving this condo are paid between $1,800 and $1,900 each month. My employer, who has an “A” grade from the annual police grading exercise, pays slightly above the going rate of about $1,700 a month.

    But Mr Johari felt the pay was still too low for the long hours put in. “At our level, we are only working for the money,” he said. “What job satisfaction is there?”

    His salary is well below the median monthly gross salary of $3,480 for Singapore citizens and just below the $1,900 monthly Workfare salary ceiling. And he works 12 hours a day, six days a week.

    In just two days there, I felt my self-esteem being nibbled away, not least because I learnt quickly that a security guard does his job best when he is invisible and doesn’t draw notice to himself. Just smile, do your job, don’t engage with residents, don’t give them any opportunity to complain.

    Over two days, only twice did people thank me.

    A Filipino maid was grateful when I held a door for her and the pram she was pushing, and a CityCab taxi driver said thanks when I pointed him to the guards’ toilet.

    From condo to worksite

    After two days at the upmarket condo, I asked the agency manager for a change and was redeployed to the worksite of a nearly completed private building in Little India.

    I presented myself at 7.45am dressed in the same uniform.

    I arrived to find a woman security guard, seated at a folding metal table, being scolded by a cleaning supervisor. The middle-aged woman had not even begun to eat her roti prata, but the supervisor was scolding her for “dirtying” the place. The truth, I learnt later, was that other workers could use that table for their meals, but not the guards.

    The building, with offices and shops, is not yet open to the public. The guards are there mainly to watch over the contractors putting the finishing touches to the building.

    Here I would be known as Security Officer Toh and I was not told to smile, apparently because I would come into contact mostly with workers and the building’s handful of full-time staff. Unlike at the condo, the guards here were free to use any of the toilets in the uncompleted building, at least for now.

    But there was no proper rest area or lockers, and guards could put their belongings anywhere, as long as they were out of sight. “Put your backpack below the table,” said my supervisor Krishnan, in his 60s.

    Here too, security guards typically work 12-hour shifts, but the duties were less structured and there was no roster of tasks.

    During my two days there, I spent five hours each day guarding the door to a room to make sure no one entered, as it had just been cleaned with chemicals.

    I told Mr Krishnan what the place needed was a lock, not a guard, but he ignored the idea. He snapped: “Why you talk so much? You are a new guard.”

    I was also assigned to patrol the perimeter of the premises. One of my colleagues, Mr Lim, in his 40s, asked if I smoked. “For smokers, going on patrol means you can find a corner to take a smoke,” he said with a smile.

    I do not smoke, but going on patrols allowed me to test the observation skills I had been taught.

    So when I spotted a white van parked illegally near a taxi stand for more than 20 minutes, I reported it to another supervisor, only to have him say: “Leave it to LTA, not our business.” The van’s presence was not entered into the guard room’s official record book, labelled “Occurrence Book”. All it said was: “10 to 11am: SO Toh conducted patrol. Everything normal.”

    Another time, the fire alarm went off. I could not contact my supervisor who was on his meal break, so I did what I had been trained to do.

    I checked the floor under my charge, evacuated a worker to a safe area and reported what I had done to the worksite’s fire control centre. I also made an entry in the record book, as I had been trained to do.

    It turned out to be a false alarm. While I did not expect a pat on my back, I certainly was unprepared for the dressing down that came from the burly security manager, a full-time employee of the building owner.

    Yelling at me for recording the incident, he shouted: “You are trying to be too smart!”

    That was when I learnt that guards were not allowed to write in the record book. They had to write on a piece of paper and show it to the security manager, who would then decide whether to put it in the book. Clearly, it was meant to show only what the security manager wanted to record.

    After the dressing down, I decided I had enough. I told the agency manager I would not be coming to work the next day.

    Mr Krishnan did not bat an eyelid when I said goodbye at the end of my shift. “Relief guards come and go. I am angry that the manager keeps sending inexperienced guards like you to me,” he vented.

    Ending my short stint as a security guard, I remembered Mr Zaini, the condominium supervisor who told me to smile while on the job. He has been a guard for 15 years and I’d asked him how he did it.

    “This is a thankless job,” he said. “Smiling makes it easier for me to get through the long day. And at the end of each day, I smile because it is over and I can get home to my family.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com