Commentaries
Parliament: Replies that never answer the question? (Act 3)
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “So, what’s the true cost of casinos?” (Straits Times, Nov 17).
How many visit casinos?
It states that “Yesterday, the House heard that Singaporeans account for 25 to 30 per cent of all casino visits.
MPs were also assured that fewer Singaporeans were visiting the casinos, as reflected in the drop in total amount of entry levies collected. But it was not clear how many were paying the $100 daily levy and how many were opting for the $2,000 annual levy”.
I find the above may be quite strange, because if the number of Singaporeans visiting the casinos has dropped, why not just give us a straight-forward answer by giving the statistics?
Since we can say that “Singaporeans account for 25 to 30 per cent of all casino visits”, it means that we also have the statistics as to whether the number has been increasing or dropping.
So, why go a round-about way of saying that “MPs were also assured that fewer Singaporeans were visiting the casinos, as reflected in the drop in total amount of entry levies collected”?
A drop in total levies may not necessarily mean a drop in the number of Singaporeans visiting the casinos, because it may mean that more people have converted to the annual levy, or more people are visiting but for lesser number of times for the daily levy.
The above may be reinforced by “But he (Minister) did not give a breakdown of how much came from the $100 daily levy and how much was from the $2,000 annual levy (“Close watch on casino gambling”, Straits Times, Nov 17).
Why not just give the breakdown so that we can see whether the the number of annual levies has increased?
Reason for more gambling counseling?
The report “130,000 excluded from casinos to date” (Channel NewsAsia, Nov 16)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1237692/1/.html#.UKZNtTaRb9A.facebook
said “Mr Chan also said that the National Addictions Management Service (NAMS) and Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre saw the number of people seeking help increase from 300 in 2008 to close to 770 between January and October 2012.
“The upward trend is likely to be a result of efforts by NCPG (National Council on Problem Gambling) and NAMS to raise awareness of problem gambling,” said the acting minister”.
Isn’t it rather obvious that the reason may just simply be that more people have gambling problems, instead of “efforts” and “awareness”?
Every time the casino problem statistics are cited, the reason given has invariably been due to more awareness, and I believe everyone just accepts this reason without questioning the obvious?
How much money lost?
Once again, the current debate tells us the same story that it is not possible to figure out how much money Singaporeans have lost? Well, in this regard, since the two casinos had combined annual gaming revenue of $5.7 billion last year, your guess is as good as mine as to how much came from Singaporeans?
If we take the “Singaporeans account for 25 to 30 per cent of all casino visits” figure, the amount may be about $1.6 billion ($5.7 billion x 27.5%) in just one year!
How many gambling?
Finally, the most important and basic statistic has never been revealed – how many Singaporeans visit the casinos in a year and how many have visited since the casinos opened, and how many visits by Singaporeans, despite years of countless debates in Parliament?
And also the corresponding statistics for permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners, for comparative purposes, so that we can see if indeed the IRs’ gaming revenue are mostly from foreigners.
All that we have been told so far may be quite meaningless “half statistics” like so many per cent of total visits without the number of total visits, less total levies means less Singaporean visitors, etc.
In fact, the Government’s earlier review on the two integrated resorts gave a total of 273,693 local gamblers visiting the two casinos last year, but not how often did the 273,693 locals visit the casinos, that is how many visits did they make in total in the year?
So, why is it that the subject Parliamentary debate is now silent on the actual number of people visiting the casinos?
Casino statistics cannot be revealed?
In this connection, it may be interesting to reproduce what I wrote about casino statistics on Aug 3 – (“Singapore ahead in the losing game?” (Today, Aug 3)):-
“I refer to the article “IRs here have not created more gambling addicts: CRA” (Today, July 30).
On the call for greater transparency regarding the number of Singaporeans entering the casinos, it states that Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) chief executive Lau Peet Meng had agreed that the legality of the information – and how it is shared – could be looked into more carefully.
I find it strange that the Casino Control Act can be crafted such that statistics on how many Singaporeans are entering the two casinos may not be revealed. I have read the Act and am unable to find such a prohibition. Can the CRA point out the specific section(s)?
Then how was the former Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister able to disclose last September in Parliament that more than a million Singapore residents had visited the casinos since they opened?
While CRA chairman Richard Magnus said last week that it was an “urban legend that quite a number of our (residents) frequent the casinos” and had cited an Institute of Mental Health study that gambling addiction numbers remain the same, surely giving the statistics on Singaporean visitors would be the best way to end speculation that more are gambling.”
History of casino statistics disclosure?
So, in summary, if we trace the history of the disclosure of casino statistics in Singapore – at first, the former Minister gave the number of visits but not the number of Singaporeans, then the Government review gave the number of locals but not the number of visits, followed by the CRA saying that the Act prevented the disclousure of certain statistics, and now in Parliament the percentage of Singaporean visits out of an unknown total or the number of Singaporeans?
2nd in the world for gambling losses?
According to the article “Gambling: The biggest losers” (The Economist, May 16), “Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa alone nearly outgross the entire Las Vegas Strip”.
In the chart accompanying the above article, “Biggest gamblers – Loss per resident adult, 2010. $ (US$)”, Singapore is ranked number two in the world, at about US$1,180. Australia is ranked number one at about US$1,280″.
Record pawn shop loans
According to the Department of Statistics’ Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore June 2012, pawn shop loans increased by its greatest margin ever in history.
338,600 pledges in just 1 month
Pledges at pawnshops increased from 2.98 in 2010 to 3.5 million in 2011, and was 338,600 in the month of March 2012 alone.
81% increase in loans
The amount of loans given out increased from $2.7 to $4.9 billion and $622 million, respectively.
This means that the amount of loans from pawn shops increased by a whopping 81 per cent in 2011.
$622 m loans in just 1 month
At the current all-time record high of $622 million in just one month, the total in a year may hit seven billion.
So, why is it that so many people pawn their items for so much more loans from pawn shops? Is it linked to casino gambling losses?
Commentaries
Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.
He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.
SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.
The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.
The report detailed that:
- The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
- A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
- Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
- A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
- Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.
Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs
Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.
Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.
The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.
The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.
“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”
The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.
Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report
In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.
He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.
In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.
“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”
Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.
“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”
“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”
He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.
Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs
In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.
He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.
Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.
He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.
Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.
Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.
“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”
Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.
“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.
“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”
Commentaries
Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders
Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.
Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.
Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.
While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.
Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.
They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.
Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.
Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.
As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.
This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.
Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.
He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.
Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.
Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.
Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors
According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.
However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.
Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.
He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”
He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.
“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.
Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race
Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.
A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.
During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.
Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.
Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016
Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.
Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.
In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.
They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.
Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.
The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.
“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”
“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”
The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.
The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency
It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).
They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.
“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”
Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.
Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.
-
Comments7 days ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments3 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Crime2 weeks ago
Leaders of Japanese syndicate accused of laundering S$628.7M lived in Singapore
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore6 days ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore7 days ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore4 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore4 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home