colmt
“Having higher aspirations in life is a reason why Singaporeans find the cost of living here expensive, despite real wages having gone up,” the TODAY newspaper reported Minister of Defence, Ng Eng Hen, as having said on Saturday, 10 May.
Dr Ng was speaking at a Singapore Medical Association (SMA) dinner. He was responding to a question from an audience member about the rising cost of living in Singapore.
“If you look at household goods, per household, what people have – handphone, TV – has actually gone up,” the minister said. He added that now, unlike the past, “mobile phones are almost an essential item for children.”
According to TODAY:

“That Singaporeans find costs of living expensive due to higher aspirations is a reason that will not please people, including himself, said Dr Ng, as the reason is ‘objective’ and does not address ‘issues of the heart’.”

In recent months, the issue of cost of living in Singapore has been in the spotlight, especially after the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) released a report in March which ranked Singapore as the most expensive city in the world to live in. [See here: “Sing on a shoestring”.)
eiu
The EIU report drew a dismissive response from Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the next day.
Mr Tharman said reports like that of the EIU “are meant to measure cost of living for expatriates in various parts of the world, and thus do not reflect those of local residents.”
He said, “In the last five years alone, if you take our middle-income households, our median households, their incomes have gone up faster than the CPI index, the cost of living. In fact, it’s gone up by 10 per cent in real terms.”
But Mr Tharman’s reassurance may be little comfort to the average Singaporean who feels the pinch on a daily basis.
In the last few years, as costs escalated, low- and middle-income Singaporeans felt the pinch the most.
In a March 2011 report, the TODAY newspaper said:

“From basic necessities to hawker meals, from holidays to that new car, from healthcare bills to expenses related to starting and raising a family, it seems that Singaporeans are certainly feeling the pinch of higher prices, according to a Today survey of voters living in the heartlands. Eight in 10 of the respondents said they were worried that such expenses were getting much more expensive.”

And in February 2013, a poll by the government’s own feedback unit, REACH, found that “cost of living issues are the top concerns of Singaporeans.”
col2013b
The fears and worries continued into 2014, with even the younger ones expressing concerns about the cost of living and whether they will be able to find jobs which will pay enough to meet such costs.
In March 2014, the Straits Times reported that “nine out of the 15 young people” it interviewed at a dialogue session with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said they worried they would not be able to afford “basic goods”, namely a flat and a car.
This came “amid rising costs and more intense competition for jobs and at work”, the paper said.
One of the youths interviewed said she “[hoped] to be able to take care of my family and myself with my meagre salary in the future.”
youths
The issue is evidently serious and important enough for PM Lee to mention it on two major occasions so far this year – in his speech at the NTU Ministerial Forum in January; and in his May Day message recently.
“We think in Singapore that we invented the ‘cost of living’, but we did not invent the ‘cost of living’,” Mr Lee said in January, adding that other countries also face the issue. He nonetheless acknowledged that in Singapore “many people worry about job security, cost of living, whether they can do better than their parents.”
In his May Day message, Mr Lee said, “If you compare to any other country in the world, I think we are doing well but we are going through changes, difficult ones and it has brought stresses and strains, competition, anxiety, widening income distributions, worries over cost of living.”
In trying to explain the reasons for Singaporeans’ fears about the issue, Dr Ng perhaps has lost sight of the reality on the ground for the average person. Indeed, his argument is in fact an old one which was used by the government in the past.
In an article in the Straits Times in February 2005, Ms Ling Chien Yien wrote about why Singaporeans complain about the cost of living, and why government statistics do not reflect reality. Her reply could very well be in response to what Mr Tharman had said (see above):

“Statistics may show that growth in income is faster than increases in living costs. But in reality, the middle- and low-income families find it hard to share this optimism. Their complaints against the heavier burden of living costs and price hikes are not without reason.”

In his reply, Chen Hwai Liang, then Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, offered arguments similar to those of Dr Ng’s:

“While costs have gone up modestly, they have not been the main reason that households have felt pressure. Nobody wants to turn back the clock to the days before air-conditioners or handphones, or when only a small minority could afford overseas travel, even though costs might have been lower then.”

Mr Chen added:

“The way forward is to create more prosperity and growth, so that Singaporeans can get better jobs, and attain the higher standards of living that we all aspire to.”

Still, to effectively blame the cost of living on Singaporeans’ “higher aspirations” or perception, as Dr Ng evidently did, is “disingenuous”, says blogger Ng E Jay.
“Dr Ng Eng Hen is widely off the mark,” Mr Ng wrote on his blog in response to Dr Ng’s remarks.
“The high cost of living in Singapore is not a matter of perception alone, and neither is it merely a result of Singaporeans having higher aspirations and expectations in life.”
Two of the causes, he says, are rental and the cost of raw materials.
For example, “businesses, faced with increased rental costs, have no choice but to pass the costs onto consumers, or risk shutting down.”
“That is why the prices of so many of our daily necessities and conveniences of life have gone up so quickly,” Mr Ng wrote. “Hawker fare and prices at food courts have soared in recent years precisely because of rapidly rising rentals.”
He said that “unlike many developed countries where the cost of living is indeed beyond the government’s control, inflation in Singapore is instead generated by the government’s policies.”
“The government has taken in so many foreigners but not increased the supply of housing, and social and educational services to accommodate the increased demand,” Mr Ng said. “It does not take a genius to figure out why prices have risen so rapidly. The government has failed to build infrastructure and increase the level of social support ahead of demand. In the end, it is the citizens who suffer.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

“超人妈妈”刘燕玲 受委任政务部长、西南市长身兼四职

7月25日,总理李显龙宣布新届内阁名单,除了纳入六名行动党新人,不少部长职务也获升迁。 教育部兼人力部高级政务次长刘燕玲,也升任政务部长,并转到文化、社区及青年部和贸工部任职。她也将继续担任西南区市长。 此外,她还肩负“市长协调员”,可谓责任重大。 对于身兼多职的刘燕玲,每月的所获薪资也成为关注。人权律师张素兰指出,刘燕玲去年作为高级政务次长,已有约57万2千元的报酬。如今作为至少一个部门的政务部长,其获得年薪估计至少会有77万。 张素兰表示,“不仅如此,她是否获得议员月薪,约1万6千左右;以及身为市长,她是否会获得约66万元的薪酬。” 身兼多职也只领一份薪水 不过,时任国家安全统筹部长张志贤,在2018年的国会曾回应部长薪资议题。他指出多名政治职务者负责超过一个职位,目的在于累积他们的经验,不过负责一个或多个职位,每人只领一份薪水。 根据当时的说法,部长薪酬制度已在2012年白皮书中阐明,初级部长年薪是110万元,部长花红是年薪的一部分,不是额外收入。 不过,张素兰也质问,针对即将可能获得更高报酬的刘燕玲,她是否会将额外的薪酬捐给人民协会。 相反地工人党毕丹星曾表示,他将一半的加薪捐出,用于政党、居民和慈善机构的捐款,即扣除所得税后,相当于他年薪38万5千中的9万6千元。 对于政务繁忙的刘燕玲又该如何兼顾照顾家庭?刘燕玲曾在2014年接受采访时表示,从政后,最艰难的部分是必须牺牲与孩子共享天伦的时刻。因此,她也会尽他所能,与家人一周内至少共进两次晚餐。 “吃饭时间能够让我们谈论任何事情,互相分享趣事或困扰的事情。”…

Today in history – remembering Operation Spectrum

Operation Spectrum, also known as the 1987 “Marxist Conspiracy”, was the code…

再有五名巴士司机起诉新捷运

上周五(28日),由于无法在最后一次调解会议上达成和解,五名巴士司机决定再对新捷运公司(SBS Transit)发起诉讼。 去年9月,五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运,指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。不过在去年11月13日,工业仲裁庭(IAC)裁决新捷运未抵触雇佣法。 目前再有五名巴士司机入禀法庭,控诉新捷运公司未能对他们间隔值班( split shifts)期间的等候时间,予以补偿。 根据诉状,他们认为在凌晨4至5时间隔值班的“待班时间”,以及早上9时至中午1时期间,该公司未能予以基本时薪补偿。 此外,他们认为公司未补贴值夜班的18元津贴,违反服务协议下的第24(9)条款;以及违反雇佣法36(1)条,因为未能提供每周休息日的班表等。 同时,该公司还有所谓的“内置加班”工时( Built-In Overtime),司机们认为这使得他们比原本规定的44小时工作更长时间,从而违反雇佣大第38(1)条文。此外,也申诉公共假期工作仍领到按普通时薪计算的加班薪资。 加上此前八名巴士司机,如今对新捷运公司发起诉讼的司机总共有13人。 代表这些司机的拉维律师表示,届时需检视这些诉讼是否涉及违反人力部设下的条规,以及合同里有关休息日和加班费用的事项,是否有违雇佣法。