Screenshot from video on Singapore Voices Youtube channel

During the Q&A session of the inaugural Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Talk on poverty in Singapore and gaps in the social safety net, veteran economist Yeoh Lam Keong was asked why the 250,000 people living in absolute poverty in the country are not putting more pressure on the PAP for help.

Mr Yeoh illustrated that the majority of those living in poverty are children and so they are not voters. Of those who do vote, they only make up a fraction of the overall voting population. They are, unfortunately, a small minority said the former GIC Chief Economist.

Mr Yeoh added that the rest of the voters are also not aware enough of the predicament of the poor because of various reasons, form inadequate data being collected and not enough forums to educate people, meaning that story of the poor are not told to the rest of the voters.

“So the key is really the swing voters in the middle, the people who are not absolute poor who will have to vote for the benefit of the absolute poor,” asserted Mr Yeoh.

“It is you and I who will have to put the political pressure on our policymakers to say it matters to us that our underprivileged brothers and sisters are not being well looked after. It matters to us,” he added.

Mr Yeoh said it’s up to the rest of the voters to make a dent in the votes, otherwise the poor will never be looked after. Aside from the lack of information, he said “this is partly why this has gone on for some time.”

The same audience member also asked about Singapore’s Gini Coefficient compared to other OECD countries. On this, Mr Yeoh notes that Singapore’s Gini Coefficient is among the highest in the world even after being adjusted for the fact that it’s a city. This shows that Singapore is still one of the most unequal societies and economies in the world.

However, Mr Yeoh notes that poverty is only a small subsection of the overall problem of inequality, which is what the Gini Coefficient measures. “Inequality generally is a deep social problem as well,” said the economist.

Universal Basic Income

Another attendee asked if a universal basic income (UBI) would be able to alleviate the problem of jobs being lost to automatic and the current problem of poverty.

Mr Yeoh responded, “First of all you start with the basics. You need an unemployment insurance system. Then we talk about UBI.”

One of the reforms recommended by Mr Yeoh in his earlier talk was the introduction of a comprehensive national unemployment protection system to help the unemployed poor in Singapore.

Focusing specifically on UBI, Mr Yeoh notes there are certain attractions to this concept including alleviating anxiety in the uncertain gig economy.

“The attraction is this, if you give a basic income of let’s stay $1,000 to everybody and they know they can get it if they need it, then what happens when you face a gig economy, when you don’t know whether your next job is going to be next week or next month?”

He continued, “This amounts to a high anxiety, miserable existence. No longer do you have a job. So without, if you have all these gigs, it’s going to be a miserable existence without a basic income.”

Drawing on his own experience, Mr Yeoh said:

“I had to work for 25 years in GIC and I can tell you that a lot of it I didn’t really enjoy. A lot of it I enjoyed and I love GIC as an organisation but in any organisation, working day in day out having to work on your mind 24/7 – which we had to in GIC – is not a pleasant experience. I would not wish that on my kids to have to work, to slave away.”

With UBI, a person’s basic needs are covered which means they are able to then take up jobs that they actually like and enjoy instead of resorting to slaving away at a job they hate just to put food on the table.

“So in a gig economy you have more freedom. You can pick and choose because you have a basic income support. You don’t have to have a miserable existence,” said Mr Yeoh.
However, he pointed out that although basic income is a good thing, he has a problem with the ‘universal’ aspect of it.

“Why are we paying $1,000 to everybody whether they are at the top 10% or bottom 10% of the population? The guys in the top 50% don’t need the $1,000. Why are you paying them? The guys at the bottom 20% need it… You are making it 5 times more expensive for taxpayers.”

So Mr Yeoh says he agreed with a basic income for the bottom  20%, not everybody.

Redistributive taxes

On whether there are additional taxes that can be implemented to secure additional funding, Mr Yeoh says there are some options.

“The first one is actually an environmental tax. If we don’t do something about the environment, if we continue abusing the environment like we do today, there’s not going to be any society for our kids. So you need to tax it heavily so that we do not go in that direction,” he explained.

Holding up Scandinavian countries as an example, Mr Yeoh noted they raise an average of 1-2% of their GDP from environmental taxes. This is something he says Singapore should do as well.

“We could do that and that money can go to the poor or education or healthcare. 1-2% of GDP is significant,” he added.

He also talked about redistributive taxes such as a wealth tax which he says is a ‘reasonably good idea’ which could help level the playing field.

A wealth tax, as suggested by US democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, on those above the $10-15 million threshold is a good idea, said Mr Yeoh.

He also suggested a progressive consumption tax. Acknowledging that it’s not something most people like, but he highlighted that if the poor are exempt from income tax and essential items are excluded from the consumption tax, then this could raise about 2% of GDP which can then fund a basic income for the bottom 20% in the country.

“So it’s changed from a consumption tax which is regressive to a progressive consumption tax,” explained Mr Yeoh.

Mr Yeoh said he thinks Singapore should look at dramatic radical redistribution through these kinds of taxes: super wealth taxes, environmental taxes, and progressive consumption taxes.

“Singapore is blessed in the sense that we don’t have to look at that many of them because we already have huge fiscal headroom. It may not be enough for everything we need but the remainder can be done through environmental taxes I think quite easily,” he concluded.

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

含超标致癌物 卫生科学局回收三含药物

卫生科学局召回三种含有超标致癌物的药物二甲双胍(metformin)。据悉二甲双胍被广泛用于治疗初期二型糖尿病患。 卫生科学局昨日(4日)发文告表示,在测试了46种二甲双胍药物中,发现三种药物含有可能超标致癌物“N-亚硝基二甲胺”(简称NDMA)。 惟,卫生科学局澄清说受影响的药物由于在我国售卖时间不长,因此对病人并不会造成太大的风险。 卫生科学局正与供应商以及国际组织合作核实受影响原因,日后也会提出相关措施应对。 由于停止使用药物会使血糖突然攀升,为避免造成更大的风险,卫生科学局也呼吁民众不要擅自停止使用,可以和主治医师沟通。 此外,卫生科学局也建议医疗人员应尽快安排病患更换药物。 N-亚硝基二甲胺通常出现在加工食品、肉制品与低水平的空气污染中。最近还发现,出现在部分药物中。目前全球已遭会发现含有这些杂质的药物 美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)周三(12月4日)表示,该机构正在对美国市场售卖的抗糖尿病药物二甲双胍进行抽样检查,若有必要就会召回相关药物。 欧洲药品管理局(EMA)则表示,至今尚未发现欧盟市场所售卖的二甲双胍含超标的NDMA。病人应该继续服用医生所开的药物。

Activist and opposition party member files police report for harassment

Osman Sulaiman, activist and member of opposition party, National Solidarity Party has…

Three men imprisoned for abetting illegal departure from Woodlands Checkpoint

Three men has been sentenced to jail for arranging the illegal departure…

联合国报告员:过大权力干涉言论自由

联合国言论自由权问题特别报告员凯伊(David Kaye)日前发表声明,促请新加坡政府撤回《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》(POFMA),并应予以立法机关与公众更充足讨论空间,确保法案符合国际人权法。 凯伊在上周三(24日)向我国总理李显龙致函一则措辞强烈的声明,抨击《防假信息法》不仅对“真伪消息”拥有绝对的酌情权,也成为政府打击言论自由的基本依据,构成自由言论的阻碍,尤其是公共辩论、政策批判及持不同政见之言论。 凯伊表示,他在法案中发现疑惑之处,例如:任何部长及相关执法人员将获赋予权力,可以裁定何谓“虚假陈述“。这也会促使他们滥用该权力来抑制、审查及惩罚网上言论,限制言论自由。 “我在担任特别报告员期间,曾目睹有者利用法律来对付“假消息“的案例。通常用以对付新闻记者、维权人士等人,而这样的法律也带来了深远的影响。“凯伊强调。 打击假消息予以重罚,无疑削弱公众对政府的信心 我国政府与4月1日向国会提呈《防假信息法》,并预计在下月初进行二读辩论。 该法第二条第一项,任何陈述如果“部分和全篇”被指“虚假、误导性”,可以被认定为假消息。凯伊认为部长甚至只需取文章段落,要求将之更正或删除。 凯伊也批评,基本上,该法案并未提供总理或执法者,清楚的方向来如何断定消息的真伪,已偏离国际人权法中对信息清晰度与可预测性的标准。 他还说,政府以刑事罪定义网络假消息,而以上说法已赋予部长或执法者强制更正或撤下部分或全部内容的权力,限制网络消息的散播,无疑是削弱公众对政府的信任。 严苛刑罚产生寒蝉效应 严苛罚款或刑罚等不正当的处置,也可能会不当地扼杀了新闻记者、维权人士,政治评论者及在野党的言论自由,增加审查、寒蝉效应的影响。…