Connect with us

Current Affairs

Household income inequality at lowest in 20 years; but is that really the case?

Published

on

On Thursday, the Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat) released figures on the median household income, showing that household income inequality in the country has dropped to the lowest it’s been in 20 years.

The Gini Index—which captures the distribution of income among individuals or households within an economy—is based on household income obtained from work per household member. The degree of income inequality measured by the Gini index amounts to one for perfect inequality and zero for perfect equality of income distribution.

In 2019, the country’s Gini coefficient before taking into account transfers and taxes was 0.452, lower than the 0.458 in 2018. This is the lowest it’s been since 2003. The 2019 figure dropped further to 0.398 after accounting for taxes and transfers.

So according to SingStat’s numbers, household income inequality has never been lower in Singapore since 2003.

According to SingStat’s report, Singapore uses the Gini coefficient after government handouts and taxes are taken into account. SingStat noted that “this reflected the redistributive effect of government transfers”.

But what are these government transfers and are they actually as helpful as implied?

Taiwan-based Singaporean activist and blogger Roy Ngerng pointed out in a Facebook post the transfers listed in SingStat’s report include GST vouchers, Senior Citizen bonus, baby bonuses, education schemes, employment schemes, rebates on utilities, healthcare subsidies, tax rebates and CPF bonuses and scheme.

There are a dizzying number of these transfers which you can see below:

Mr Ngerng then pointedly asks in his post, “How many of these would you consider real transfers that benefited you, and how many of these are high prices the government makes you pay, then subsidize a bit for you?”

Basically, do these transfers actually benefit low income households and reduce the income gap?

Transfers mostly in subsidies, not cash in hand

A similar point was raised by veteran blogger and human rights campaigner Leong Sze Hian back in 2017 when SingStat released figures to show that the country’s Gini coefficient for 2016 was lower than the year before.

In an article on TOC, Mr Leong shared SingStat’s report which noted that government transfers in 2016 amounted to S$9,806 per household. However, he pointed out that most of these transfers do not come in the form of cash that recipients can use as disposable income.

In fact, a closer look shows that many of these transfers or handouts are actually subsidies and rebates that reduce the cost of services, such as subsidies on healthcare (like CHAS), health screening, MediShield Life premiums, education and public rental, and rebates on income tax and property tax.

Meanwhile, there are transfers that are given in the form of money into recipients’ CPF accounts like the Workfare Income Supplement—where a 90 percent goes into CPF Medisave and only 10 percent is given in cash to a self-employed person, or 60 percent to CPF and 40 percent to an employed person. Also, the CPF Life Bonus and voluntary deferment bonus also goes into CPF.

Additionally, there are transfers that come in the form of money that can only be used for specific things such as top-ups to Medisave accounts that can only be used for future healthcare fees (which are on the rise), the Pioneer Generation Package with discounts on healthcare fees, and MediFund which can help pay 50 to 100 percent of hospitalisation bills, subject to means-testing.

Mr Leong pointed out that these transfers help people to “pay less of what may be comparatively “overpriced” services” compared to other countries and the money given can “only be used in the future to pay for ever-increasing prices” of services.

To illustrate the point further, Mr Leong also pointed out that a healthy non-elderly (below age 35) low-income family with no children and work long hours – you may not get any income tax rebates, property tax rebates, CPF Life Bonus, education subsidies, training subsidies, MediFund, health screening subsidies, healthcare-related subsidies, Pioneer generation package, Medisave top-ups, Workfare Income Supplement, et cetera.

Taking a real-life example, a mother of three shared last December at a forum by activist Gilbert Goh that she was unable to pay her child’s miscellaneous school fees because she had to pay off other, more urgent bills first.

Ms Tharuga said that she was a stay-at-home mum, being able to rely on just her husband’s income. Unfortunately, her husband started to suffer from medical problems, leaving him unable to work as he was hospitalised for several months.

This meant that Ms Tharuga had to deal with paying her husbands hospitalisation bills on top of caring for her sick mother as well as her 18-month-old and newborn child who was delivered via c-section.

Overwhelmed by the issues, Ms Tharuga had no choice but to prioritise the medical and childcare expenses over school fees.

So despite the large amount in transfers that the government says the people get, these examples show just how the handouts/schemes by the government do not actually elevate the financial burdens of low-income families all that much.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

on

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending