More stupid speech by Men In White

DPM Tharman outlines strategies to tackle inequality among citizens
01 March 2012

SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Thursday outlined four strategies in Parliament to tackle the issue of inequality among citizens.

The first strategy is to grow the economy, so as to raise income levels across all segments.

The second strategy aims to preserve and enhance social mobility starting from young.

Another strategy is to encourage a partnership with the community through voluntary welfare organisations and community development councils and lastly, to redistribute wealth among Singaporeans.

Mr Tharman said: "We will have to redistribute through a fair system of fares and tax benefits to provide significant benefits for the low-income group to keep up and upgrade, but avoid placing excessive burden on the middle income group. (This system) is there in all our budgets, including this year's budget."

As for the low income, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said there are already schemes in place to help them.

These include the Workfare and Comcare schemes as well as the enhanced housing subsidies.

Mr Tharman said these are major interventions made in the last five years and these measures are not new.

"What do taxes mean, and what do transfers and benefits mean over a lifetime for a low-income household? If you add it all up together, you'll find that for every dollar that a low-income household pays in taxes, they get back S$4 in benefits from workfare, housing benefits, healthcare benefits to education subsidies. This is a simple expression of how progressive our system is. Everyone pays some taxes because everyone should contribute to a better Singapore. But the low-income group gets back much more in benefits to support work, education and housing.

"In the last five years, the transfers we've provided to the lower income group, net of the taxes they pay, which is basically GST, and transfers net of taxes amounted to almost 20 per cent of their incomes. It is a significant increase from the previous five years. So, we've moved significantly in the last five years through a range of interventions towards addressing the issue of inequality and building an inclusive society. This is not new. This is not post-GE 2011."

But Mr Tharman added that benefits and transfers given to the low income must not end up as disincentives.

MPs like Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Edwin Tong had raised concerns about making sure Singapore does not end up a welfare state.

Mr Tharman agreed, saying that the government should be careful when it comes to giving out benefits.

He said the government has to be focused in its intervention strategies and these include addressing social mobility at the early stage and helping the lowest wage workers.

He said: "There are incentives effects if you provide too much benefit when your incomes are low. It is the natural workings of society. It's not that people are trying to gain on the system. It is natural human behaviour that you have an incentive to stay where you are and not upgrade or you will start losing your benefits. Every society has found this to be a problem.

"As you expand benefits, more people try to stay within the group that gets the benefits instead of upgrading beyond that threshold. We got to be quite careful, and preserve that drive to do better, learn a new skill and move your family up because that drive at every level of society defines us. It's not just the most talented people or the most educated that have this drive. It is actually that drive among ordinary Singaporeans that defines us. Let's not lose that and this means being focused in our interventions as we go ahead."

While extending benefits to those who need it, Mr Tharman was also cautious about suggestions to extend the Special Employment Credit scheme (SEC) to more groups.

These include homemakers, ex-offenders and single mothers.

Though he said Dr Lily Neo's suggestion to extend the SEC to those who did not attend special education schools would be addressed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in their Committee of Supply debate.

Mr Tharman said: "The SEC is a major intervention in the job market. Not everyone faces the same disadvantage because some homemakers move in and out of work and they're not necessarily at a disadvantage when they come back. I would be very careful about extending what is considered a major intervention, in favour of older workers to more and more groups."

Moving on to the middle income group, Mr Tharman said one strategy is to raise the real incomes of the sandwich class.

This, he said, will help them cope with the cost of living.

He shared that median households in Singapore have seen healthy income growth over the past five years, at an average of 3.2 per cent per year, in real terms.

"This 3.2 per cent growth is frankly quite rare over the last five years. In Hong Kong and Taiwan, it was negative over the last five years for median income growth in real terms. There was positive growth in South Korea but it was lower than us. Most developed countries had significantly lower median income growth over the last five years so we haven't done badly."

Another strategy to help the middle-income group is to keep taxes low.

Mr Tharman said this is a very important feature of Singapore's tax system, which is lower than most developed countries.

He gave the example of how a middle-income family which owns a car gets about 80 cents back for every dollar in taxes they pay.

And the benefits are more for those who don't own a car.

Mr Tharman said: "If you don't own a car, even as a middle income Singaporean, you get back $1.50 for every $1 tax you pay over your lifetime. There are very few systems that provide this. And for those who want to have a car for the convenience because they have a large family or with elderly persons who need ferrying around, it's still a very fair system. There are very few systems where for every $1 of tax you pay, you get 80 cents back over your lifetime for the average household."




Its pretty ironic for a million dollar Minister to talk about income equality isn’t it?

These idiots in the cabinet are quite good at making things super complex and trying to sell shit to you as goodies all just to maintain there own millions dollar pay checks.

To hell with all the schemes.

All they have to do is to do away with GST for basic necessity, reduce the cost of public transports and public housing, make utilities more affordable and have a better health care service.

This is all it takes to make Singapore a better place to live in.

And if a certain MP, who stupidly drank water from the water tank with the dead maid, is to ask where to get the money.

You just cut the bloody pay for the Ministers and MPs and increase the tax for the bloody top 10% earner in the country. These people have enough money to last 3 life times while some Singaporeans are starving to death.

This alone make me sick to the core.

Shocking quality of our defence minister.

All NS men treated equally regardless of background: Ng Eng Hen
20 October 2011

SINGAPORE: Singapore's Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said his ministry is acutely aware that all NS men must be treated equally, regardless of their background.

Dr Ng said the equal treatment for national service has been and must remain a cardinal principle, because without strict adherence to this fundamental tenet, the commitment to NS will be severely eroded and the institution of NS weakened.

Replying to questions in Parliament on the disruption of Dr Patrick Tan, the son of President Tony Tan Keng Yam, Dr Ng said the disruption was in accordance with prevailing policies to obtain his medical degree. Also, a longer period was granted to those admitted to US medical schools.

He assured Singaporeans that neither Dr Patrick Tan, nor any other individual who has disrupted, was given any preferential treatment because of their "connections".

Dr Ng said the policy to allow full time national servicemen to disrupt for medical studies in Singapore dates back to 1973. However, he added that from 1992, disruption for overseas medical studies was no longer allowed as the number of local medical graduates had met SAF's needs.

Dr Patrick Tan deferred his NS for 12 years for a PhD. He re-enlisted in 2000 after having obtained both his medical degree and PhD, and was deployed to the Defence Medical Research Institute in view of his training.

Dr Ng said: "There was no preferential treatment given to Patrick Tan, or any other individual who has disrupted, because of their 'connections'. Let me emphasise to all, including commanders on the ground, that no NS man should be accorded preferential treatment.

"I would like to further assure Singaporeans that Mindef implements a policy of selective disruption for university studies fairly and openly, in accordance with existing criteria. Mindef shall henceforth publish the list of all those disrupted for university (education) annually on a routine basis for public scrutiny."



Isn’t it amazing that the sort of crabs one can says.

Can MINDEF please explain why did you ask me to declare do I have a relative in the SAF and if so what is his/her rank on the first day of my recruit life if there is no preference treatment?

Oh I forgot Cedric Foo answered that a few years ago, he practically said MINDEF indentified white horses so to ENSURE they will not be given preference treatment.

Dumb ass! If really no preference treatment, there should not be any identification at all so commanders have to be fair to each and every soldier.

Ng Eng Hen is beating around the bush here when trying to explain Toni’s Son case.
Basically he just blamed it on old policies.

He failed to explain base on what did Patrick was granted his disruption, he failed to give a statistic on how many applied and rejected during that periods and who is in the committee that review these.

Was Tony Tan the then Minister of Defence in the reviewing committee? If not did the committee know Patrick was Toni’s Son?

This is important as, Gosh! Who will reject your boss son’s application you tell me.

Eng Hen also failed to tell us how many other were given a 12 years deferrer and how many others were posted to Defence Medical Research doing lab work while attaining a Sergeant rank during National Service.

Was this post specially created for Patrick? If not which other NSF were in this position before and after Patrick and please do also tell us what Patrick contributed during his time there.

We are not stupid like you Eng Hen.

A proud nation.

Yesterday I happened to watch a little of the daily Parliament’s Highlights on TV and I can’t help to notice that several of key cabinets members are missing from the session.

This is not the first time I notice it and if my memory served me well I remember it states somewhere it is not compulsory for them to be in every parliament’s seating.

If this is so then there is something seriously wrong with the system.

Don’t forget each and everyone in the cabinets or Member of Parliaments are in there because the citizen of Singapore voted you in there (well most are voted in anyway) to represent them!

You are there to listen and talk on behalf for the people in your constituency. You are sitting in that seat because of the people so for God’s sake do what you are supposed to do or maybe you are too proud to listen to the people anymore.

This is what happened when people are too comfortable in a job for too long and let complacency set in. A high and mighty attitude just make me sick.