Leong Sze Hian

New Paper front page headlines (Jun 5) : “100 days on, still no sign of him Mas Selamat”

Was the HomeTeam just complacent in Mas Selamat’s escape, or has the Home Team been complacent in other things as well?

I have been insured under the SCDF (Singapore Civil Defense Force) Group Term Life with Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for many years. I received a letter dated 8 May 2008, informing me that my “policy is due for renewal on 1 January 2008 ….. inviting renewal at the same rate”.

The annual premium is $ 1,639.80 for my sum insured of $ 300,000. Why is it that it took more than four months to send out the renewal notice ?

Am I and other Home Team (SCDF) insureds under the scheme covered from the expiry date of the policy on 31 December 2007 ?

On the same day that I received the above mentioned renewal notice, I also received the Home Team’s NS May/June 2008 magazine.

On page 3, there is a Home Team NS Insurance Scheme covering term life insurance and Personal Insurance (the same cover as my SCDF Group Insurance Scheme) at a much lower premium of $ 624 a year for the same $ 300,000 sum insured.

This new premium offer is 62 per cent less than my current renewal premium.

Why are there two schemes for Home Team NS members with such a wide difference in premiums ?

Some members may not be aware of the cheaper scheme if they do not read the Home Team NS magazine.

Shouldn’t the HomeTeam have the responsibility to inform members individually that there are two schemes ? Why wasn’t all SCDF Group Scheme members migrated to the new much cheaper scheme ?

Would the HomeTeam like to comment on the above ?

Does the Police talk to the ICA?

I refer to the article “$2 m cheat blows it all on gambling” (ST, Jun 10).

It states that “After the police took away his passport during the investigation, (he) went to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA), claimed that he had lost his passport and obtained a new one”.

Since both the Police and ICA are under the same Ministry of Home Affairs, how could this lapse have occurred ? What’s the point of impounding passports, if one could just go the ICA to apply for a new one ?

Don’t the Police talk to the ICA ?

After the Mas Selamat escape, I think Singaporean’s confidence in our Home Team may have diminished.

Will there be an inquiry to ascertain how this lapse occurred, with a view to ensuring that it does not happen again ?

Over the years, how many have managed to escaped, despite having their passports impounded ? Are we being complacent in discharging our responsibility to be fair to citizen taxpayers?

Tax relief – unchanged for years?

I refer to the Ministry of Finance’s reply “Ministry explains rationale behind parent tax relief” (ST, Jun 9) to David Goh’s letter “Be more realistic in allowing parent relief” (ST, Jun 3).

It states that :

As the parent relief is not aimed at compensating the taxpayer for the costs of maintaining his parents, it is not pegged directly to inflation or the cost of living. However, the Government has made major moves to reduce personal income tax burdens.

According to the Budget’s estimated receipts for FY 2008, the estimated tax revenue from Personal Income Tax at $ 5.9 billion is an increase of 26 per cent over FY 2006’s $ 4.7 billion.

As to the 60 per cent of Singaporean workers paying no income tax due to the reduction in income tax rates over the years, and the exemption of the first $ 20,000 of income from tax, the estimated GST revenue at $ 6.2 billion is an increase of 55 per cent over FY 2006’s $ 4 billiom.

Since GST is generally a regressive tax, relative to income tax – which means that the lower-income may pay more tax relative to the higher-income, compared to income tax – Singaporeans end up paying 55 per cent and 26 per cent more in GST and income tax, respectively.

One of the main reasons given for introducing and increasing GST, was to compensate for the cuts in the corporate tax rate.

In this regard, even the corporate income tax estimate for FY 2008, at $ 9.2 billion, is an increase of 8 per cent over FY 2006’s $ 8.5 billion.

In view of the above, as well as the Budget surplus of over $ 6.4 billion, surely we could be more generous in increasing the parent relief to help Singaporeans cope with rising inflation which is at a 26-year high of 7.5 per cent, instead of saying that it is just symbolic, rather than compensatory.

Are there any countries in the world which pegs tax reliefs symbolically, without regard to the realism of the actual impact on taxpayers ?

By the way, for how many decades has the Wife Relief remained at $ 2,000 without any inflation or cost-of-living adjustment ?

Are we being complacent in shouldering our responsibility by not leading by example?

Malaysia leads by example. How about Singapore?

I refer to media reports (“Belt-tightening in KL as Abdullah announces cuts, ST, Jun 10”, “Ministers’ allowances slashed, Today, Jun 10”, “Malaysia cuts ministers’ allowances to save money, My Paper, Jun 10”) that Malaysia has announced a 2 billion ringgit (S$833 million) cost-cutting package, including a 10 per cent cut on the entertainment allowance for ministers and limiting official overseas trips.

In Singapore, the acting Minister of Manpower said recently that:

Raising wages to address the issue of rising costs may be an enticing option but that is not the right solution.

He also said:

Adjusting wages upwards to meet rising prices would only result in a ‘price-wage spiral’ and Singaporeans should look at the bigger picture. What is more important is for us to have a realistic expectation of wages that reflect the underlying economic strength of our industries and also of our productivity. That will allow us to ensure that our economy will be able to sustain its growth momentum.

The minister has made a very good point, as our national productivity declined by 0.9 last year.

In the spirit of leading by example, I would like to suggest that the ministers consider reversing their pay rise in April 2007 and 31 December, 2007, and their next scheduled pay rise on 31 December, 2008.

By “sharing the pain” with ordinary Singaporeans, I feel that the minister’s advice may be better accepted by workers.

In this connection, the median monthly income for employed residents grew at 1.4 per cent per annum from $2,000 in 2001, to $2,170 in 2007.

It would be a great gesture which I’m sure the ordinary worker earning one to two thousand dollars a month will appreciate, if ministers who already earn $1.9 million or more a year (which is many times their Malaysian counterparts’ pay), don’t increase their own pay, whilst asking workers not to ask for more pay to cope with rising inflation which has hit another 26-year high of 7.5 per cent in May.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Crew aboard Canadian warship docked at Changi Naval Base tries S’porean kueh for the first time

A ship full of Canadian sailors recently had their first-ever culinary experience…

人流量和配合度仍是防疫关键 医疗专家分析去看戏、亲友聚会仍是高风险活动

政府声称冠状病毒19社区确诊病例有减少趋势,政府也表示会在下个月开始逐渐放宽阻断措施。 然而,人们有必要认清,即使放宽措施后,有些活动仍含有“高风险”的传染率,但是人数和人群配合度还是关键。 据《联合早报》所采访的数名传染病专家,包括伊丽莎白诺维娜医院传染科医生梁浩楠以及新加坡国立大学苏瑞福公共卫生学院副院长(研究)古阿烈副教授(Alex Cook)等,将各种活动依据传染风险区分,让民众了解以及避免举办或参与有关活动。 专家们认为10人以上的大型活动,如亲友聚会、电影院、健身房、酒吧和按摩院等皆属于“高风险”活动;到理发店、美甲店或在餐饮场所堂食属“中等风险”;而去超市、巴刹、购物商场或公园等则属于“低风险”活动。 然而专家们提醒,有关的风险级别区分是非常主观的,并非绝对标准。 鹰阁医药中心传染病专科医生黄乘佑指出,不能以相关的区别为标准,因若在风险低的场合出现任何举止行为出格的人,那么传染率的风险还是会随着提高;在挤满人潮的体育馆观看赛事属于高风险,但是若限制人数,确保安全距离,球员们也没有相互拥抱等近距离动作,风险也会随着降低。 他认为限制个别场所的人流,将能够控制染病风险,比如限制餐厅食客的逗留时间,健身房也要时常为器材消毒等。 梁浩楠医生则指出,人数多少以及是否保持安全距离,是冠毒传播的效率关键,因此除了物体表面的接触,一些社交行为如拥抱、唱歌和握手等行为也会增加传播风险。虽然有专家指去超市或湿巴刹、零售商店等属低风险活动,但是他认为这些场所的室内空气流通不良,病毒的存活率就会偏高,因此他认为这类场所的风险应该属中等级别。 古阿烈副教授对于逐步开放不同活动之举表示赞同,他指出,目前在冠状病毒传染方面的研究仍然不够充分,若能够量化每项活动的风险,自然就依据安排活动的恢复时段。 惟,他指出,放宽阻断措施,传染率也有可能会提高,若染病率增加了,我国或许需要再次推行病毒阻断措施。

狮城女在中国被判枪决 两律师愿襄助现一丝希望

男友携带毒品入境中国,本地女子阿兹琳达也被捕,并在当地法院被判处死刑判决。不过目前有两名义务律师愿意襄助,以争取在当地高等法庭重新检讨此案,阿兹琳达再现一丝生机。 阿兹琳达是在五年前被卷入毒品案,实则携带毒品的是她的男友,在抵达深圳后两人被捕。 人权律师拉维,在接受本地网络媒体《独立新加坡》采访时透露,目前有两名分别来自中国上海和香港的律师,表示愿意帮忙此案,不过有鉴于官司的敏感度,他们暂不便透露姓名身份。 拉维也指出,代表律师要造访狱中的阿兹琳达也遇到阻碍,但新加坡外交部正试图让驻中国领事馆协调所需的大量文件,以协助官司。 拉维了解到,目前阿兹琳达有两个申诉管道,一个是在广东的法院检讨此案,其二则是在中国最高法院。 早前,阿兹琳达的家人担忧她将面对死刑,拉维坦言,可以理解家属当时的焦虑,但如今焦虑的阴霾暂时排除,也希望当地律师团队能取得所需资料,在新加坡领事的协助下尽快见到阿兹琳达。 有中国律师索取天价费用 拉维在不久前接受CNN新闻台采访,也曾指出在中国聘请律师非常昂贵,有者甚至索取天价,阿兹琳达家属根本无力承担。 “我尝试与一些国际友人联络,找愿意无偿打官司的律师,但她的官司程序仍在进行,我们不知何时会到下个法院的阶段。” 但CNN报导出街后,很快就有律师愿意代表阿兹琳达出庭。 拉维曾就阿兹琳达的处境,致函询问外交部,后者也在去年12月25日答复,当局知晓此事,而新加坡驻广州领事,也对阿兹琳达与另名新加坡男子尤思礼( Mohd Yusri),提供领事协助。…

Hong Kong occupiers commemorates one month occupation

Post by 蘋果日報. Hong Kong occupiers gathered at the sites in Admiralty,…