Politics
Cheaper, better, faster till 70 and beyond?
Andrew Loh –
It is little wonder Singaporeans are anxious. Despite the government trumpeting that we have arrived as a “first-world country”, and boasts record GDP growth this year, and how “if Singapore Inc went for IPO, this is a $4 trillion company” (as PM Lee said in 2007), the fruits of economic growth seem to continue to elude them.
Indeed, even senior diplomat Tommy Koh weighed in on the issue of stagnant wages. “Singapore is a First World country with a Third World wage structure,” he said in September.
But wages is just one issue. Another, and perhaps a more emotional one, is that of the retirement age. We have heard everything from how we should not think of retirement, to how retirement will mean we’ll “shrivel up and face the wall”. Former NTUC Chief, Lim Boon Heng, the minister in charge of ageing issues, wants the retirement age to be raised from 62, to 65, then to 68 and finally to perhaps do away with it altogether.
Mr Lim was reported in June 2007 as “thinking of taking things a step further: to get Singaporeans to work beyond age 70.” (CNA)
Working till you drop, as the saying goes, seems to be the new economic philosophy of the government. Just like the two-is-enough population policy of the 1970s, many logical and persuasive arguments are being proferred by the government.
Working till your old age keeps you healthy and occupied. It helps you not to be a burden to your children. It affords you financial independence in your old age. You age “actively” – or what the government calls “active ageing”.
All well and good except that there is a fundamental flaw in this train of thought.
The basis for urging Singaporeans to work longer – and introducing legislation to coerce the people to do so – is that Singaporeans do not have enough to retire early.
This is a point which Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam raise in 2005. “This is of real concern,” he said, “because many Singaporeans in fact do not have enough in their CPF to meet even their basic retirement needs.” (MAS) Two years later, the government-controlled Straits Times repeated the concern. “According to surveys, many older Singaporeans do not have enough in their savings to retire on,” it said in a report titled, “The end of retirement”, in 2007. “The solution? Work longer.”
Yet, it seems no one has noticed the big fat white elephant in the room – where have all of Singaporeans’ money gone to?
“The Chinese have the highest savings rate in the world,” Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said at the fifth Credit Suisse Salon held in Singapore in 2009, “followed by Singaporeans who save some 40 plus percent of their income.” (Credit Suisse).
That alone begs the question: why is it then that Singaporeans do not have enough to enable them to retire?
Some have put the blame on Singapore’s housing prices. This is not surprising, considering that more than 80 per cent of Singaporeans live in flats provided by the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
The trend of escalating prices for public housing continued into 2010, prompting the government to finally do something about it by introducing measures to “cool” the market earlier this year. (Property Guru)
These measures, however, are piecemeal, reactionary actions taken after the fact. Their effectiveness are yet to be seen as prices, since the measures were introduced, have not seen any significant decrease.
And to add salt to the wound, Labour chief Lim Swee Say, in 2007, “urged workers not to be alarmed by the possibility that the draw-down age for the Central Provident Fund (CPF) minimum sum might rise from 62 to 65.”
It is a point reiterated by Mr Lim Boon Heng as well. “If the retirement age is raised, then the CPF drawdown age would be raised as well,” Channelnewsasia reported him as saying.
So, where do all these leave Singaporeans?
They are urged to work till their old age. The CPF draw-down age is raised. The minimum sum in the CPF has already been increased, since July 2010, to S$123,000, from S$117,000. Also from July, the Medisave Minimum Sum (MMS) was raised to S$34,500 from S$32,000. (CNA)
On top of this, Singaporeans are urged to work “cheaper, better, faster”, and to “upskill, reskill, multiskill”, to “upgrade” themselves.
In solving Singapore’s ageing population problem, the government seems to have created even more problems for Singaporeans. The huge influx of cheap foreign labour which compete with Singaporeans for jobs (at all levels) is dismissed as “necessary” to keep us “competitive”.
Yet, one would wonder, as I mention earlier in this article, with all the accomplishments which Singapore has achieved – fastest growing economy, record job creations, S$4 trillion IPO if we were a company, highest savings rate, a people who put in the most number of weekly work hours in the world – all of which the government rattle of as a litany to prove its economic policies a success, why are Singaporeans still unable to retire to a life of peace and comfort, after a lifetime of slogging it out?
Clearly, something is not right somewhere.
While asking Singaporeans not to think of retirement and to adopt a life-long work attitude, the ministers themselves receive lifetime retirement payouts (pensions). Indeed, some serving ministers (those who’re above 55) are concurrently being paid the highest salaries in the world and receiving pensions at the same time.
Perhaps the answer and the solution no longer lies in trying to make the PAP government see this – especially when it has adopted an ultra pro-employer policy – but lies in registering our concern at the ballot box.
That, in my opinion, would be the responsible thing to do – as a Singaporean.
It will not only be for our own sake but also for the sake of our next generation.
We need new leaders. Our current ones have lost their way.
This too is clear.
———————–
Cartoons from My Sketchbook.
Politics
Dr Tan Cheng Bock questions S$335 million Founders’ Memorial cost, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s stance
Dr Tan Cheng Bock has raised concerns over the S$335 million cost of Singapore’s Founders’ Memorial, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s opposition to monuments and suggesting the funds could be better used for healthcare. The memorial, slated for completion by 2028, faces rising costs, with the estimated cost not including operating or land costs.
On 14 September 2023, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, former People’s Action Party (PAP) MP and founder of the Progress Singapore Party, publicly expressed concerns over the estimated S$335 million cost for the Founders’ Memorial.
In a detailed Facebook post, he questioned the necessity of such an extravagant expenditure and referred to the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s known opposition to monuments in his honour.
Dr Tan highlighted a poignant moment from Lee Kuan Yew’s eulogy, delivered by his grandson, Li Shengwu, on 29 March 2015.
Li recalled how, when it was once suggested that a monument be built for him, Lee Kuan Yew had responded, “Remember Ozymandias.” This reference was to a sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley about Ramses II, in which a traveler encounters the ruins of a once-grand statue in the desert. The statue bore the inscription: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!” But nothing else remained of the empire.
Li Shengwu reflected that his grandfather’s remark underscored his belief that if Singapore failed, a monument would be useless, and if it thrived, a monument would be unnecessary.
“His legacy is not cold stone, but a living nation. We could no more forget him than we could forget the sky,” Li said, adding that Lee Kuan Yew’s enduring contribution lay in the strong institutions he built, which persist beyond the individual and ensure Singapore’s stability.
In his post, Dr Tan echoed these sentiments, questioning whether spending S$335 million on a memorial aligned with the founding leaders’ values.
He suggested that the funds might be better spent addressing pressing national issues, particularly healthcare, as Singapore’s population continues to age. Dr Tan, who served for decades as a practising doctor, called for investments in a home care system, noting that such a move would reduce the strain on hospitals while improving the well-being of the elderly.
The estimated S$335 million figure was revealed during a Parliamentary session on 9 September 2023, in response to a question posed by Louis Chua, a Workers’ Party MP for Sengkang GRC. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong provided the cost breakdown, explaining that the figure covers construction, the fit-out of exhibition galleries, a viewing gallery, an outdoor amphitheatre, family spaces, amenities, and a five-hectare outdoor garden.
Mr Tong added that the final operating costs for the memorial are still being worked out alongside the development of operational plans.
Notably, Mr Tong’s disclosure did not include land costs.
Lee Hsien Yang, son of the late Lee Kuan Yew, also responded to Dr Tan’s post, pointing out that the five-hectare site in Bay East Garden could significantly increase the overall cost.
He noted that a nearby plot of land at Marina Gardens Crescent, measuring about 1.5 hectares, was tendered earlier in 2023 but rejected for a bid of S$984 per square foot, deemed too low by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Based on this price, the value of the land for the Founders’ Memorial could exceed S$500 million, pushing the overall cost of the project even higher.
The Founders’ Memorial, initially slated for completion in 2025 to coincide with Singapore’s 60th birthday, is now expected to open by the end of 2028. The project was delayed due to extensive infrastructural work at its Bay East Garden location and disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The twin two-storey buildings, designed by Kengo Kuma & Associates and Singapore’s K2LD Architects, will house an integrated gallery and public gardens, intended to serve as a space for reflection on Singapore’s past and inspiration for the future.
While Minister Tong emphasized that the memorial aims to capture the spirit of the nation and foster unity, Dr Tan urged that the focus should remain on practical solutions for Singapore’s future. He argued that a simpler, more humble memorial would be more in line with the founding leaders’ values, allowing the remainder of the funds to be redirected toward initiatives that benefit the nation’s aging population.
Labour
Jamus Lim argues why Jobseeker Support Scheme is the PAP’s version of unemployment insurance
In a Facebook post, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim rejected PAP’s claim that the JSS isn’t unemployment insurance. He explained WP’s redundancy insurance plan, emphasizing shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government. While noting concerns about dependency, he argued these fears are exaggerated, stressing a balanced support approach.
SINGAPORE: Associate Professor Jamus Lim, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, has offered his take on the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS), which he describes as the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) equivalent of unemployment insurance.
The JSS, unveiled with more details during Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally speech on 18 August, has sparked comparisons with the Workers’ Party’s own long-standing proposal for redundancy insurance (RI), first introduced in its 2006 manifesto.
In a 12 September Facebook post, Assoc Prof Lim emphasised that the WP had been advocating for a redundancy insurance scheme for almost two decades, providing substantial details on it in their 2016 policy paper.
“We’ve been thinking about the issue for a while now,” Lim stated, adding that the WP’s proposal has been part of global best practices for advanced economies for nearly a century.
Assoc Prof Lim dismissed the PAP’s argument that the JSS is not unemployment insurance.
He pointed out that the differences the PAP cites—such as JSS being tied to job-seeking conditions and funded from general revenue rather than payroll taxes—are inconsequential.
“Tax revenue is fungible, so it all comes from the people anyway,” Assoc Prof Lim explained.
He argued that funding the scheme from general revenue might even make it less equitable, as it could potentially shift the burden onto non-workers to subsidise workers.
The Workers’ Party’s version of redundancy insurance, Assoc Prof Lim highlighted, envisioned a shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government to ensure fairness and sustainability.
“We do believe in tripartism,” he remarked, underscoring that society should bear the responsibility for protecting its workers.
One of the central points in Assoc Prof Lim’s critique was that tying financial support to job-seeking efforts is standard in unemployment schemes globally, including in Singapore.
Assoc Prof Lim Addresses Concerns of Dependency, Calling Them Overblown
He acknowledged concerns that such a scheme might lead to dependency, but deemed these fears exaggerated.
“Most people, even in the West, do find value and meaning in some form of work,” he noted.
In discussing the design of unemployment insurance systems, Assoc Prof Lim pointed to the importance of balancing the duration of support with the amount provided.
While too long a tenure or too large a payout could discourage a return to the workforce and allow skills to erode, too little would leave workers struggling to cover household expenses during critical periods.
The WP’s redundancy insurance proposal included a payout of 40% of the last drawn income for up to six months, which Lim described as a “solid-but-not-excessively-generous” sum.
Although this amount is lower than what is typically found in advanced economies, and the duration is shorter than the OECD average of one year, he highlighted that it reflects Singapore’s shorter unemployment spells of around two months.
Assoc Prof Lim also suggested the introduction of greater flexibility in accessing redundancy insurance funds.
By allowing the unemployed to “front-load” their payouts, households would have more breathing room to adjust their expenses during difficult transitions.
With the JSS set to be debated in Parliament, Assoc Prof Lim reaffirmed the Workers’ Party’s commitment to advocating for expanded safety nets for Singapore’s workers.
“Whether you call it JSS or RI or something else, expanding the safety net for our workers is something that the Workers’ Party will always be fighting for,” he concluded.
-
Singapore4 days ago
Minister K Shanmugam transfers Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million following Ridout Road controversy
-
Singapore1 week ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Parliament5 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Diplomacy1 week ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament6 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Politics1 week ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Politics4 days ago
11 former or current PAP MPs & Ministers underscore heavy presence in NTUC leadership