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.

————–

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

Homeless in Singapore due to technicality

Zia is a 42-year old divorcee with five children. Four of the…

港亲建制传媒发起网络投票 83巴仙竟认同示威者攻入立法会

7月2日,在发生示威者闯入立法会事件后,香港亲建制派传媒《经济通》,与晴报联合举办一项网络民调,询问香港网民意见,对于反《逃犯条例》修订的抗争持续,有示威者攻入立法会“肆意破坏”,“您认同此表达诉求的方法”吗? 从该网站发起的投票记录显示,有多达34万8922人参与,不过吊诡的是,这个香港亲建制派传媒发起的民调竟然只有11巴仙投票者,表示不认同示威者做法。 而投票认同的,却高达83巴仙,约为28万9605人,而表达无意见者6巴仙。 在本周一香港七一回归中国22周年,除了香港政府举办周年主权移交纪念升旗仪式,反对《逃犯条例》修法的示威者,则发起“七一游行”,也齐聚升旗场地外游行抗议。 而在下午时分,其中一批示威者经过商讨后,决定冲击立法会,即便有议员在现场劝阻也不听。有者使用铁笼车冲击立法会玻璃外墙,或以铁支企图撬开铁闸。 晚上9时许,示威者成功打开闸门闯入立法会,原本在场驻守的警队却突然撤退。有者在墙上涂鸦,并写上“太阳花”、“释放义士”、“反送中”、“真普选”等字眼,甚至涂鸦会议厅香港区徽和历任立法会主席肖像。 事后,香港警务处处长卢伟聪周二否认警方“设局”。他表示,周一晚约9时,有一系列事情发生,为了安全,警方只好暂时撤退,重整后再取回立法会大楼。 《经济通》是提供财经资讯的网站,是《香港经济日报》旗下成员,经济通通讯社于2001年成立,主力拓展中国内地业务,并于同年获新华社批发许可证,能合法在中国内地发放涉外经济资讯。ET Net(BVI)是经济通有限公司的母公司,香港经济日报集团持有ET Net(BVI)96.04巴仙股权。 《经济通》立场也常被批为亲建制派,而从该官网舆论论述,也较偏维稳和反对“反送中”集会。 网民号召到《经济通》投票区投票、打笔战…

Can those in ivory towers empathise with the mediocre people who do not have $5000 a month job?

by Judy Tan I remain puzzled and a little amazed that Han…

禁食期间欲进食被阻 男病患与医生保安起冲突

一名男病患因想要在禁食期间吃东西,却被医生阻止而感到不满,与医生和保安起冲突。 事件发生于中央医院昨日(2日)下午,据了解该病患因医疗程序被延后,想要在禁食期间吃东西,不料却被医生阻止,因此感到愤怒并与医生发生冲突。 视频显示,病患随后看见保安人员时情绪激动,开始冲撞保安人员,而保安人员则用双手抵着肩膀,不让他靠近,但他仍试图靠近保安,而且愈发激动,而保安随后也向他推了一把。 然而男子被推后更愤怒,试图再度冲向保安,旁人则即时拉住男子将两人分开,男子随后也对着保安指指点,也挥手请他冷静。 两者的冲突也被路人拍下并上传到All Singapore stuff 脸书专页,引起网民关注,截至目前已获得349转载,506赞。 在视频流传后,院方也随即发表声明表示,针对延长禁食让病患感到不适而致歉,但也强调不能容忍任何人对职员动粗。 院方指出,该名病患因医疗程序被延后,导致禁食时间拉长,当时得知该名病患想要在院内食堂进食便立即前往食堂组织病患,病患不满被阻止,并迁怒于医生,开始向医生大吼,而院内立即通知保安,当保安抵达现场后,病患愈发激动,并与保安发生冲突。 院方解释,当时其医疗程序被延后是因为突然出现更紧急的状况,无法即时处理病患,院方也为此道歉,并表示若有任何不满可以向他们投诉,但同时强调不能容忍任何人对职员动粗,倘若有人想对职员动粗,院方也会毫不犹豫采取行动。