The Populist Minimum Wage Call By SDP and WP

If minimum wage is the answer, wouldn't you expect the problem of poverty solved in countries with minimum wages? 

In the US where statutory minimum wages were introduced nationally in 1938, poverty has not declined. In fact, child poverty in the US is among the worst in the developed world. One in three US children lives in poverty according to UNICEF. (http://wapo.st/1IdtFvs)

Australia has the highest minimum wage in the world. Yet poverty is on the rise according to a report by the Australian Council Of Social Services (ACOSS). It rose from 13% in 2010 to 13.9% in 2012.

So what drives minimum wage? It's mainly politics. 

The call for a minimum wage is a populist appeal to votes and it is in SDP and WP's manifestos to call for a minimum wage.

Implementing a minimum wage is akin to treating symptoms without addressing the causes. It is just a cosmetic change that looks good on the outside but changes little on the inside.

Every revision to the minimum wage without a corresponding rise in worker's productivity adds to the cost of doing business and renders the worker with little skill more vulnerable. 

Why more vulnerable? Because businesses may compensate by cutting back on spending for workers' training. In the long run the worker with little or no skill loses out on skill training and therefore the prospect of earning more with better skills. 

Businesses may also decide to hire fewer workers. As a result, while some workers benefit immediately from a rise in income, others find themselves out of a job. 

The Singapore government's approach to social mobility is a holistic one with social and economic policies working hand to hand to lift people up. 

First it encourages the person who earns little to stay employed by supplementing their income through Workfare. Such an approach which rewards regular and productive work reinforces 'work ethic' which has been the bedrock of our success.

Complementing WIS is the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme. While WIS rewards productive work, WTS encourages the worker to go for training to improve his skills and employability and earn more!

The Progressive Wage Model rolled out by NTUC recognizes that workers must be paid fair wages. Thus it has a minimum wage feature incorporated into it. At the same time, it also recognizes that the way for a worker to earn more after the starting-out wage is to be more productive and not by a revision of that minimum wage. Hence there are provisions for the worker to go for training so that he/she can progress up the wage ladder through higher productivity.

Home ownership is a very important part of lifting people out of poverty. The person who owns his home is free to focus on his job and further training to enhance his employment.
Through generous housing grants, a person earning just $1000 a month is able to afford a 2-room flat using CPF to finance it with no cash outlay. 

What many people do not realize is that the housing grants they receive are not merely a discount on the purchase price of the flats they buy. These housing grants are cash gifts which stay with them and should they sell their flat, the grants will be credited into their CPF account for their retirement. 

Children from low income families can access a range of financial assistance which include waiver of school fees, free textbooks, uniforms, and school shoes, waiver of national examination fees, transport subsidy, pocket money, free breakfast (primary schools), bursaries etc. 

Anyone can make the call for a minimum wage. It's doesn't require much effort to implement it either. You can simply legislate it and pass the cost to businesses. 

But takes more than a minimum wage to lift people out of poverty. It takes a whole lot of schemes and policies to help people and that requires brain work.

History Of Town Councils: Why town councils were set up

A story was told of a frustrating moment when Mr Chiam See Tong, then an MP in Potong Pasir, wanted to plant an exotic tree in his ward. But the HDB would not let him! He protested and found unlikely support from none other than the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong.

Mr Goh said that HDB should not interfere with Mr Chiam's desire to plant the Sterculia Nobilis or even to rear chickens if he liked!

No, the Town Council Act did not arise because of this frustrating moment.

But Mr Goh was making the case for HDB to cede some power to MPs and residents to run their own estates and create the type of environment they would like to live in.

Before there were town councils, housing estates were managed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB). The standardised rules for all housing estates meant that HDB towns were monotonous.

By managing housing estates centrally, the HDB was also slow in reaching decisions to fix problems faced by residents and addressing their complaints. It was against this backdrop that the town council concept was introduced.

With local autonomy, each town would be better able to develop its own distinctive character and identity, reflecting the aspirations and commitment of its residents and Town councillors.

The first pilot town councils were Ang Mo Kio West, East and South, each comprising three constituencies.

The pilot town councils were responsible for the upkeep and management of the constituencies. Among the works carried out by the three town councils during the trial period were installing ceiling fans at hawker centres, replacing footpaths and creating more parking spaces in the housing estates. The councils also initiated landscaping projects such as paintings at void decks and shrub plantings to liven up the surroundings, and to give distinctive features to the neighbourhoods. The town councils were also involved in organising community-related activities such as exhibitions and campaigns to promote social responsibility and neighbourliness among residents.

Following their success, the government passed the Town Council Act in 1988 to pave the way for the full implementation of the town council concept throughout Singapore.

 

Behind the scenes: What led to separation in 1965

On Aug 9, 1965, towards the end of a press conference after Singapore became independent, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: "There is nothing to be worried about. Many things will go on just as usual. But be firm, be calm. We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation, this is not a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion."

Mr Lee's call for unity amid diversity in our multiracial society remains relevant half a century later. Fifty years on, as we near the jubilee year of Independence, it's timely to look back at events leading to the Aug 9 separation.

What were the events and the plans that led to that pivotal break?

What happened behind the scenes? Was Singapore "booted out" by Malaysia or was it a mutually agreed decision?

While researching for my doctorate in history, I set myself the task of piecing together, from available records, a picture of what happened in the weeks leading up to Aug 9, 1965.

NEGOTIATING THE FUTURE

In July and September 1964, there were racial riots which led to damage, serious injuries and loss of lives in Singapore. On the economic front, the common market of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore did not materialise.

In November 1964, the then Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin proposed raising an extra RM147 million in taxes.

This could have led to Singapore taxpayers contributing more than 35 per cent towards the federal budget, although the Singapore population comprised only about 17 per cent of the whole population in Malaysia at that time.

Furthermore, the proposed turnover and payroll tax would seriously affect businessmen in Singapore. The Malaysian Finance Minister also wanted to increase the contribution of Singapore to the federal government from 40 to 60 per cent of its revenue.

In addition, there were increasing tension and differences between the People's Action Party leaders in Singapore and the leaders in the Malaysian central government.

According to Ms Tan Siok Sun's biography, Goh Keng Swee: A Portrait, on Jan 22, 1965, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman wrote to Dr Goh Keng Swee and offered Singapore full autonomy, except in foreign and defence matters, in exchange for Singapore giving up its seats in the Federal Parliament.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee was involved in a series of discussions with the Malaysian leaders but "all these (negotiations) came to nought", as noted by Dr Goh. Dr Goh recalled, during his interview with Dr Melanie Chew in the book Leaders Of Singapore: "In the early days there were a lot of discussions about changing the terms of Malaysia by the Prime Minister, Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye. It got nowhere."

On June 6, 1965, there was the Malaysian Solidarity Convention at the Singapore National Theatre, where Mr Lee advocated a "Malaysian Malaysia". This upset certain Malaysian Umno leaders.

Around July 13, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tun Razak asked Dr Goh, who was then Singapore's Minister for Finance, to visit him in his Kuala Lumpur home. The then Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs Ismail Abdul Rahman was also present at that meeting.

Ms Tan wrote that during this critical discussion, Tun Razak commented: "We can't go on like this."

LET'S CALL IT QUITS

Dr Goh said that when he and Mr Lee first proposed the merger, they did not expect the situation with Malaysia to deteriorate to this level, "so the best thing would be to call it quits; we should go our separate ways". Dr Goh recalled: "I just want to get out. I could see no future in it; the political cost was dreadful and the economic benefits, well, didn't exist."

Dr Goh proposed: "Well, we leave Malaysia, become an independent state, and you will be relieved of all these troubles, and we would also be relieved of troubles from you. All these tensions that have built up, communal tensions, will all be over. We are on our own, you are on your own."

Tun Razak requested Dr Goh to ask Mr Lee about his views on this matter. On July 20, 1965, there was a second meeting in Tun Razak's office. Dr Goh met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail. Dr Goh said Mr Lee was in favour of the secession of Singapore to become independent. This was to be done no later than Aug 9 as Parliament would reconvene that day and the Bill for the Independence of Singapore would be introduced.

According to Dr Chew, Dr Goh was recorded as saying: "Now on the 20th of July 1965, I met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail. Now this is the 20th July 1965. I persuaded him that the only way out was for Singapore to secede completely."

Dr Goh stated: "You want to get Singapore out and it must be done very quickly. And very quietly, and presented as fait accompli."

Dr Goh commented that Tun Razak and Dr Ismail agreed with the separation. "In fact, they themselves had come to the conclusion that Singapore must get out. The question was how to get Singapore out," said Dr Goh.

In that oral history interview, Dr Chew remarked: "So the secession of Singapore was well planned by you and Tun Razak! It was not foisted on Singapore."

Dr Goh responded: "No, it was not."

Mr Lee stated in his memoirs, The Singapore Story: "Keng Swee came back to report that Razak wanted a total hiving-off. Razak had made two points: first, he wanted Keng Swee to confirm I was in favour. Keng Swee said, 'Yes, provided it is done quickly before Lee's commitment and involvement in the Solidarity Convention makes it impossible for him to get out.' Ismail accepted this point. Razak appeared both relieved and incredulous because, according to Keng Swee, he half-expected me to reject the idea. Keng Swee said I was realistic enough to see that a collision was imminent and that the consequences were incalculable."

Specific plans were made from July onwards. For the third meeting on July 27, Dr Goh took along a letter of authorisation signed by Mr Lee dated July 26. The letter stated: "I authorise Goh Keng Swee to discuss with Tun Razak, Dato Ismail and such other federal ministers of comparable authority concerned in these matters in Central Government any proposal for any constitutional arrangements of Malaysia."

THE SECRET DRAFT

From July to August 1965, Mr Eddie Barker, the Singapore Minister for Law, prepared the constitutional documents and agreements for separation. In the oral history interview with the National Archives, Mr Barker said: "Sometime in the middle of July 1965, I was summoned by the Prime Minister to his office. He asked me whether I thought our Attorney-General could be asked to draft an agreement for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, and if he did, whether we could keep it a secret. I replied that the Attorney-General was the best man for the job but I was afraid others would get to know about the proposal. The Prime Minister then asked whether I could draft the agreement. I replied that I would try."

Mr Lee recalled: "Eddie drafted the two documents, but I asked him to draw up a third, a proclamation of independence."

There was a fourth meeting on Aug 3, 1965, at Tun Razak's office, again involving Dr Goh. Tun Razak confirmed that Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman was in favour of the separation plan.

Dr Goh also discussed with Tun Razak and Dr Ismail the defence proposals. Few people in Singapore were aware of these plans for separation. The British leaders were not aware of these separation plans until Aug 8.

On Aug 6, 1965, Dr Goh and Mr Barker had a final meeting with the Malaysian leaders such as Tun Razak, Dr Ismail and Malaysian Attorney-General Abdul Kadir Yusof to discuss the draft of the Separation Agreement.

Dr Goh said: "My role as a negotiator was to get the Malay leaders into a mood in which they will accept the Separation Agreement with the minimum fuss and bother… And so far as the drafting and discussions of the actual text of the Agreement, well, Mr Eddie Barker had to do that."

Mr Lee recounted in an interview with Fred Emery at the studios of Television Singapore: "On Friday (Aug 6), my Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, rang me… He is now Minister for Defence and Security… He said I have to come down (from Cameron Highlands). It was very urgent. So that afternoon, I packed my bag and came down alone, leaving my family up there. I came down that afternoon and arrived at about dinner time… In Kuala Lumpur, he told me, 'This is it'."

BLOODLESS COUP

The drafting of the agreement of separation of Singapore from Malaysia was started in July 1965, at the instruction of Mr Lee. The Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 was signed and dated Aug 7.

When Mr Barker handed the signed documents to Mr Lee, Mr Lee recalled saying to him: "Thanks, Eddie, we have pulled off a bloodless coup."

In his memoirs, Mr Lee stated: "At very little notice, we had thought of a way to achieve what the Tunku could not accomplish with his own staff because it had to be carried out in great secrecy and the shortest possible time, including three readings of a Bill in one session of Parliament on a certificate of urgency, or it could never have succeeded."

Dr Ooi Kee Beng from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies stated a key point regarding the separation in his biography of Dr Ismail.

In the memoirs of Tun Dr Ismail, then Malaysian Home Affairs Minister who later became Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Ismail noted as a first-hand witness and participant of these historical developments that "in spite of what was believed, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was by mutual agreement".

In Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's eulogy speech on March 29 this year, he recalled: "I remember the night the children slept on the floor in my parents' bedroom at Temasek House in Kuala Lumpur, because the house was full of ministers who had come up from Singapore. Every so often, my father would get up from the bed to make a note about something, before lying down to rest again. But obviously he wasn't asleep. The date was 7 August 1965, two days before Separation."

It was indeed a very challenging time.

On the eve of Aug 9, 1965, Mr Lee Kuan Yew prepared the coded messages that were to be sent to three Commonwealth prime ministers to inform them of the separation. The first sentence of the message to the Australian leader went thus: "By the time you have decoded this message you will know that the Tunku has proclaimed and I have agreed and simultaneously also proclaimed Singapore as a separate and sovereign nation."

On Aug 9, 1965, at 10am, the Malaysian Parliament reconvened and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman explained the nature and details of the Separation. There was a vote on the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill 1965 to allow Singapore to separate from the Malaysian federation. It was unanimous, 126-0.

Singapore became an independent and sovereign state.

That morning, Mr Lee explained the reasons for separation to the British, Australian, Indian and New Zealand High Commission representatives.

In the afternoon of Aug 9, 1965, he announced on Caldecott Hill, in the television studio, the independence of Singapore.

In a subsequent television broadcast, Mr Lee stated in his determined manner: "I have a few million people's lives to account for. Singapore will survive."

The separation might appear as a surprise to many. However, it was a mutual agreement between the top leaders of Malaysia and Singapore, with the understanding and support of Singapore Cabinet ministers such as Mr Lim Kim San and Mr Barker.

The other ministers, such as Dr Toh Chin Chye and Mr S. Rajaratnam, were also persuaded to accept this decision for separation. Amid the diversity in the Singapore Cabinet, there was unity.

With the dynamic leadership of Singapore's founding fathers and the strong support of its people, this multiracial nation has survived and thrived, against the odds.

Singaporeans can learn from our founding fathers such as Mr Lee and Dr Goh. With the right will, proactive attitude and purposeful plans, we can succeed, even in the midst of great difficulty and challenges.

The determination to succeed and the united perseverance to work for the benefit of our nation are among the key factors which contributed to the nation's development.

The pioneer team of leaders was made up of talented, capable and committed Singaporeans such as Mr Lee, Dr Goh, Dr Toh, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Lim, Mr Othman Wok, Mr Barker and Mr Hon Sui Sen. They collaborated and complemented each other, as they contributed actively to the young nation.

During the years after our independence, the evident trust and teamwork among the leaders, together with the support of the people, enabled the country and government to strengthen and grow.

In the final recorded words of Mr Lee at the Aug 9, 1965, press conference at the Broadcasting House: "We unite regardless of race, language, religion, culture."

As we Singaporeans remember our history and celebrate our nation's 50th birthday, let us build on our legacy, plan for the future and work together as one united people, "so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation".

.
Edmund Lim
• The writer is a Singaporean pursuing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University.

Source: The Straits Times

An Underground City For 10 Million Population? That's A LIE

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has issued a take-down notice to alternative news site The Online Citizen (TOC) for an article titled "Severe consequences for a PAP majority with its underground city for 10m population", published on Jul 31.

There are no plans for a underground city for 10 million and the central claim in that article that the issuance of the Singapore Savings Bonds is for the purpose of financing an underground city is also blatantly false.

AGC also noted that TOC did not check with the Ministry of National Development before publishing the article and requested that TOC either remove the article or include a specific paragraph laid out in the AGC notice.

This is the specific paragraph laid out in the AGC's notice:

"Since the publication of this article, The Online Citizen has received notice from the Attorney General’s Chambers that the central assertion made in this article is patently false: The monies raised from the issuance of the Singapore Saving Bonds will used to finance the construction of an underground city for a population of 10 million.

There is no plan to build an underground city or underground residential developments to accommodate a “10 million population”. Underground space has been developed to accommodate infrastructure such as MRT rail lines, utilities and storage spaces. This is intended in fact to prioritise and maximise surface land to create a good environment which meet the needs of our people and their families for work, live and play."

TOC has since appended the notice at the top of the article. 

THE LIE ABOUT RAISING GST EXPOSED!

You have heard this fear-mongering also. They tell you the government will raise GST after the coming election.

Not only is there no basis to this claim, it is also inconsistent with what the government has already stated.

In the Statement for Budget 2015, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, said:

“Based on current projections, the revenue measures we have undertaken will PROVIDE SUFFICIENTLY for the increased spending needs we have planned for TILL THE END OF THIS DECADE.” (Emphasis ours) (Refer to paragraph G38 of the Budget Speech)

And in rounding up the 2015 Budget Debate, DPM Tharman stated, “We have prepared ourselves in advance and that must remain the way in which we plan for our budgets in the decades to come. With the change to incorporate Temasek in the NIR framework and the other tax changes I have introduced, in particular the increase in the personal income tax rate, we will be in a good position for at least the rest of this decade."

The Government’s approach remains that of responding to changing circumstances and planning revenue measures in advance of Singapore’s future needs. Through this forward-looking approach, we have been able to meet the growing needs of our people in healthcare and invest in our future, while preserving fiscal sustainability and Singapore’s Triple-A credit rating.

Source: Factually
http://bit.ly/1HsEcis

Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong And The Making Of The Pioneer Generation Package

When MM Lee Kuan Yew and SM Goh Chok Tong stepped down from cabinet right after the general election in 2011, they issued a joint-reminder for the younger PAP Government to take good care of our pioneers.

  

"This generation who has contributed to Singapore must be well-looked after."                                                              

                                                                   - Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, May 2011         

It was a couple of years in the making before the Pioneer Generation Package was finalised.

On 9 Feb 2014 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced this package to honour our pioneers.

$8 billion has been set aside for this package, fully funded by budget surplus built up by the younger team in this term of government. This is the Government's commitment and assurance to the pioneers that no matter how the economy performs in the future and regardless of who will be in government, their promise to them will be honoured throughout their lives.

Did you know the term Pioneer Generation and the principle behind PG Package was first mentioned by former PAP MP Loh Meng See in 2001?

"Perhaps the Government can modify its attitude to recognise that we are having in our midst the pioneering generation of independent Singapore needing help. If we lighten the burden of these elderly citizens in their twilight years, we are helping their children at the same time. They would be relieved from the financial burden of taking care of their grandparents and parents and concentrate on taking good care of their young families." - Loh Meng See

And no, the Pioneer Generation Package has nothing to do with Ms Sylvia Lim or Workers' Party. It has got everything to do with our first two prime ministers.

http://bit.ly/1DppjSY