Taxing the poor and then handing out aid packages "demeans human dignity"

Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is expected to announce a 2 per cent hike in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) tomorrow on Budget Day in Parliament. This bitter medicine will be prescribed after only minimal public consultation, and with the mainstream media heartily promoting the Government’s line that it is a move in favour of the poor, despite the fact that the GST is inherently regressive.

I have been reading the memoirs of former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow, A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy. In interviews he had with The Straits Times in 2003 (which were re-published in his book), he commented about the GST, which was hiked to its present 5 per cent in 2004. In response to the question, “Is (the PAP’s) social compact with the people in need of an update?”, he said:

“I don’t understand the urgency of raising the GST, which effectively increases the tax on the lower income people. Why tax the lower income, and then return it to them as an aid package? It demeans human dignity and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out their palms. That is not the way to treat people. Despite the fact that we say we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most welfarish states in the world. You should appeal to their sense of pride and self-reliance.” (pp 25-26)

Mr Ngiam, an EDB pioneer and former Permanent Secretary (Finance), is no bleeding heart liberal. In fact, he is a hard-nosed fiscal conservative. He made these remarks in the context of warning the Government not to “dance to the tune of the gorilla”. What he meant was that the Government should not breed a mentality where people depend on it for everything, including “dispensable items”. He felt that the Government should “just concentrate on helping the poorest 5 or 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse.”

“Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility shares”, he said.

I still maintain that the Government can explore many other sources of additional revenue, as outlined in my earlier post. In that post, I suggested 6 areas in which this could be done:

1. Use the capital gains from Net Investment Income

2. Further increase vice taxes

3. Collect more taxes from tourists

4. Impose a luxury tax

5. Stop giving election handouts to promote partisan interests

6. Work harder at reducing government administration expenditure

Let’s see what offset packages for the lower income group are announced by Minister Tharman tomorrow. They are unlikely to be as permanent as the GST hike, and even if they are — like Ngiam Tong Dow says — it still demeans their human dignity by making them permanently dependant on government handouts for survival.

Community regulation, not prosecution for "No Pork" podcasters

In my previous post, “‘No Pork’ podcast shows racism is alive and well in Singapore”, I criticised the makers of that podcast for being racist. I also took issue with bloggers who re-circulated the clip while endorsing its brand of humour. Finally, I was saddened by the reaction of so many Singaporeans (including some people I know) who thought it was funny and saw nothing wrong with that clip. I saw all this as evidence that Singaporean society — particularly the Chinese majority — has a long way to go to come to terms with, and tackle our prejudiced attitudes with regards to race and religion.

Now that the news of the clip and the reaction has gone mainstream, with the Straits Times and TODAY newspapers both reporting it, I thought I should state my stand on what I feel the authorities should or should not do in reaction to this.

Although there are some grounds to charge the makers of the clip under the Penal Code (Section 298), I do not think this is the appropriate course of action that the police and the Attorney General should take.

Firstly, it appears the clip was made with humour in mind, not with a “deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person”, as is stated in the Penal Code. While it revealed the podcasters’ immaturity, insensitivity and their prejudice, Singapore does not have any laws against racist attitudes, per se. In any case, it seems the recording was staged, and there was actually no Indian-Muslim involved in it.

Secondly, this incident has proven the ability of Netizens to self-regulate — at least to some extent. After being flagged as inappropriate by a YouTube user, the popular video hosting site took down the clip, presumably because it violated their terms of service clause, which prohibits “speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular…religion…”. It also provoked a strong reaction by many bloggers like Speranza Nuova and blog readers (who posted comments) who felt that the clip was demeaning to Muslims.

I would imagine that if the police were to take action against Ximiwakoz, the goon who posted the clip, it would be mainly to demonstrate to the Muslim and Indian communities that the Government does not tolerate racial and religious prejudice, and to prevent any strong reactions from those communities in response to the clip. I believe that our society has progressed since the 1960s, and the authorities should not fear anything other than a measured and rational response to such relatively minor incidents.

Having said that, I do hope that Chinese community leaders will take note of this incident, and speak out against prejudiced attitudes towards minorities, which are so prevalent in the Chinese community.

Teachers should show the clip to their students to impress upon them that this is inappropriate behaviour, whether in public or in private. It is wrong, not just because we live in a multi-racial society, but because prejudice against other races, religions and socio-economic classes is intrinsically immoral.

Sylvia Lim: WP will not push gay issues in Parliament

Workers’ Party (WP) Chairman Sylvia Lim told a packed audience of over 80 people at the WP Headquarters yesterday that her party will not be canvassing for the de-criminalisation of gay sex in Singapore.

Ms Lim, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), was speaking at a public forum organised by the WP to discuss the Singapore Government’s proposed amendments to the Penal Code — the primary criminal legislation that defines crimes like defamation, criminal breach of trust and rape, and their respective punishments. It was the WP’s first public forum this year and part of a series of events to mark the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s oldest political party in this November. The event featured presentations from several speakers.

Ms Lim kicked off the discussion by lamenting about the lack of attention paid to legal issues in Singapore by the media and the public. As a result, when the issue of crime was discussed, the “right wing school” often seemed to dominate the debates. She expressed concern about the sharp increases in prison terms for some offences. For example, if the amendments were approved by Parliament, the punishment for assaulting an MP would increase from 7 years to 20 years, and the penalty for being part of an unlawful assembly (itself a contentious matter) is to increase from 6 months to 2 years. Ms Lim felt that these new sentencing guidelines might further increase Singapore’s prison population, which was already the second-highest in Asia (as a percentage of the total population). This, she said, would not bode well for efforts to create an inclusive society.

Lawyer and TODAY columnist Thomas Koshy noted that while the proposed amendments included lifting of some immunity for husbands who rape their wives, it didn’t go far enough to cover all instances of marital rape. Party member Firuz Khan contrasted the process of enacting legislation in Singapore and the UK. He pointed out that in the UK, there were two Houses of Parliament, many non-government organisations (NGOs) and a diverse media to scrutinise bills before they were passed. This is not the case in Singapore, where the media tends to favour the Government’s position on proposed legislation and there is little organised action by NGOs to push issues. Marriage counsellor Anthony Yeo, who was the last to speak, encouraged ordinary citizens and NGOs to submit their views on the Penal Code, instead of depending on the Opposition to voice its disagreement.

WP reveals its position on homosexual issues

The issue of decriminalising gay sex gave rise to a heated debate during part of the question-and-answer session following the panel presentations. Two gay lobbyists in the audience questioned the apparent bias against gays in Singapore, arguing that it went against the Constitution, which guarantees equal rights to all Singaporeans. They wondered if the WP would be their representatives to speak up in Parliament for the gay community. The gay community was understandably upset that the proposed Penal Code amendments did not revoke Section 377A, which states that:

“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

Ms Lim revealed that the issue of decriminalisation of gay sex had been discussed by the Party leadership. She said that while there was some “sympathy for the gay position”, there was no agreement among the Party’s leaders on moving this issue forward as a party agenda. Therefore, the WP would not be pushing that in Parliament. The WP chairman gave no indication that this position would change in the future. She did observe, however, that the gay lobby in Singapore was already very vocal and more than capable of pushing this issue on their own.

The WP’s stand of homosexuality may have surprised, or even disappointed, some who were hoping for Singapore’s largest opposition party to advance a more liberal agenda against the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government, which has been criticised by many as being out of step with the times on several issues, particularly with regards to political freedom and social mores.

In recent years, the WP has sought to distance itself from the confrontational politics practiced by the likes of its former chief J.B. Jeyaratnam and the SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan, in order to win the support of a broader spectrum of the Singapore electorate. Its position on not campaigning for gay rights is therefore unsurprising.

While a recent Singapore Polytechnic student-led survey of 800 teens aged 15 to 19 years revealed that half of them found homosexuality “acceptable”, a similar survey conducted by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) six years ago found that a much higher 71 per cent of young Singaporeans found homosexuality unacceptable. The young people covered in the MCYS survey would now make up the 21 to 25 year age group. It is widely believed that resistance to expanding the space for homosexuals is even higher among the middle-aged and older Singaporeans, who make up the bulk of eligible voters (63 per cent).

Even if one were to set aside moral arguments, this stance by the WP is certainly a sound political move which will put it in a good position to reach its target voters, namely Singaporeans who want an alternative but credible voice in Parliament to check and balance the ruling party.

"No Pork" podcast proves racism is alive and well in Singapore

There is a audio recording circulating the Internet in which two Chinese Singaporean men are poking fun at an Indian Muslim food stallholder by insisting on ordering pork, despite the stallholder repeatedly telling them he serves only halal food.

I was furious when I heard it. It isn’t funny at all. It’s not just extremely insensitive to Indians and Muslims. It is downright racist.

Full-time blogger Xiaxue posted it on her blog and remarked that it was “super funny”. Her post alone attracted over 260 comments, most of which agreed with her.

It turns out the recording was staged — the “Indian” character was actually a Chinese guy and the recording was done at his house. This according to the girlfriend of one of the men who recorded it. However, this does not detract from the gravity of this offensive recording.

Coming hot on the heels of the British reality show Celebrity Big Brother in which the participants racially abused Indian actress Shilpa Shetty, this clip and its response has revealed an even uglier side of Singapore. At least in the UK, the participants were roundly criticised by the public. Here in Singapore, most Chinese (including the makers of the podcast) don’t even realise that it is wrong. It makes me wonder if our façade about being a model of “tolerance” and “racial harmony” is a farce.

Chinese Singaporeans really need to engage in some serious introspection about our racist attitudes towards minorities. I have often heard comments from Chinese Singaporeans that “there is no racism in Singapore”, unlike in Australia and the UK. Who are they to make such judgments? Those of us in the majority race would never know what it is like to be a minority in your own land, unless they have lived in as a minority before.


“Chinese speaking environment” preferred

Another thing I’ve noticed recently is how job recruitment ads have evolved. Previously, they used to say “Mandarin speaker required”. Now the wording of choice is “Chinese speaking environment”, with the hope that non-Chinese will shy away from even applying in the first place. We all know that this is just another way for some companies to avoid employing minorities. Just look at these ads and judge for yourselves.

http://www.jobcyclone.com/job_desc.php?d=7383

http://www.bestjobs.com.sg/bt-jobd-unitedpersonnel-314512.htm

http://sg.jobstreet.com/jobs/2006/2/r/20/723622.htm

One of them, Zeal Infotech, asked for a Java programmer who is preferably “able to speak Mandarin” as the candidate “will be working in a Chinese-speaking environment with Chinese Singapore Citizens and PRs, or with Singapore PR invitation letters”! [read: We welcome all Chinese, even if you’re a foreigner, but non-Chinese Singaporeans should think twice before applying.]

This shameful state of affairs has got to stop NOW if Singapore is to become a developed society. It begins in the home. Parents need to realise that every casual generalisation about a certain race leaves a lasting impression on their children, many of whom carry their “inherited” racism for a lifetime without even realising it. But where parenting has failed in this aspect, the education system needs to revise its curriculum to not just preach “tolerance” (which leaves room for people to be racist behind closed doors or under the cloak of anonymity), but inculcate a genuine revulsion for all forms of racism — including employment bias and racist jokes.

Reaching out to our youths

Last weekend as I was collecting my mail at my void deck, a youth about 17 years old with arms covered with tattoos and a cigarette between his fingers came around the corner and ejected a wad of spit on the floor just a few feet from me. I looked at him and told him in the most civil tone I could manage at that point, “Excuse me, please don’t spit on the floor”.

He sheepishly replied, “Sorry…I didn’t see you there”, as he attempted to “clean up” his mess by using his foot to spread the sputum over the tiling.

“Even if you didn’t see me, you shouldn’t spit, what. This is our flat”, I attempted to reason with him, before getting my letters from the mailbox.

My new acquaintance happened to be taking the lift up to his flat together with me. He asked me, “Which floor?” while still holding that glowing cigarette. Although I was tempted to point out that he should not be smoking in the lift, I thought it best to let it go. Besides, by him offering to help me press the lift button, it was at least an indication that I didn’t just make an enemy out of my neighbour (he lives one floor below me).

As I got back to my flat, there were two issues that troubled me. The first was why Singapore youths continue to be so inconsiderate and exhibit anti-social behaviour like spitting in public places, smoking in lifts, not giving up their seats on the MRT to pregnant women and the elderly, etc. The second was what it would take to reach out to “at risk” youths like my young neighbour.

I think the two issues are related, and by addressing the second problem, the first will naturally be solved to a great extent too.

In the course of my volunteer work with youths in the past 6 years, I have learned that a key reason why many kids veer off the straight and narrow path is because many of them lack self esteem and affirmation in life.

My young neighbour has probably heard more than his fair share of negative words from his parents, teachers and perhaps even law enforcement officers for his anti-social behaviour. Unfortunately, I just added to his “honour roll” of reprimands in his life.

My objective in telling him off was simply to try to get him to feel a bit more “ownership” over our block of flats. However I can’t help but wonder if he thought I was some educated guy who looks down on “bad kids” like him. That was certainly not my intention. I regret that I didn’t attempt to make some small talk with him as we were in the lift, just to dispel any preconceived notions he had about me.

I think one way to reach out to youths is for more of us “older youths” make a greater effort to befriend them and mentor them. This is obviously not easy, given the social and “cultural” gap between us. But once they see that an adult is willing to take the time to listen to them as they talk about their hopes, dreams, fears and disappointments, they are much less likely to try to find their identity and sense of self-worth in their peers, many of whom are probably negative influences on them.

There are several voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) in Singapore which help bridge this gap by providing a framework for young professionals to befriend and mentor teenagers. Two volunteer programmes that my wife and I have been involved in the past few years are the Friends of Children programme by Life Community Services Society, and the Trybe programme by Save the Children Singapore Ltd.

Friends of Children is a befrienders programme matching volunteers with children whose parents are incarcerated (i.e. in jail). Volunteers commit to meeting their assigned child at least once a month for informal mentorship. Trybe runs motivational courses for secondary schools, Institutes of Technical Education and even reformative training centres (juvenile prisons) with a message telling them that they can achieve their dreams if they believe in themselves. Trybe also runs a “Life Coaching” programme, which is a teen’s equivalent of coaching for corporate executives. The volunteers attempt to impart positive values in their mentees through regular, structured lessons conducted for groups of 3 to 6 teens over a period of one year.

Youth crime thankfully saw a slight decline last year after more than 5 years of exponential increase. However the task ahead to reach “at risk” youths in Singapore continues to be mammoth — and growing. Nevertheless, as touchingly illustrated in the Starfish story, we can all make a difference, one life at a time. On my part, I hope that when run into my young neighbour again, I’ll pluck up the courage to give him a nice smile and hopefully chat with him on the way up to our respective floors — just to let him know that he matters too.

Kallang roars again!

I’m glad I attended Saturday night’s thrilling Asean Football Championship match between Singapore and Malaysia at the National Stadium, which Singapore won on 5-4 on penalties (1-1 after extra time). My friends and I sure got our $6 worth! It cost only $1 per goal and a few more for the lozenges for my sore throat which I got from cheering the Lions and taunting the Malaysian fans seated near my section. (Just kidding, I didn’t really need the lozenges.)

Photo credit: Football Association of Singapore

It was probably the first time since the Malaysia Cup days that the National Stadium has been filled to such capacity with a sea of red, cheering on our national team. The atmosphere in the gallery was electric. As I entered the gates, a battalion of Malaysian fans decked in yellow and carrying Malaysian flags was provocatively marching around the perimeter of the stadium. I could just imagine what it was like when Northern Irish Protestants would march through Catholic residential areas and spark riots, and vice versa. Singaporean fans were sufficiently provoked to heap loads of vitriolic insults on the Malaysians, although there was little risk of any physical violence breaking out.

Looking at the young crowd around me, it dawned on me that at least half the fans had never seen the Lions in action during the Malaysia Cup, as they were too young when Singapore pulled out of the tournament. Their cheers were loud, but uncoordinated. Nevertheless, it was great being able to cheer for our team side-by-side with Singaporeans of all races, and “high fiving” complete strangers after our goals.

Football is able to arouse patriotic emotions and gel the people like nothing else apart from war itself. It is the only time you see “apathetic” young Singaporeans singing the national anthem with such gusto.

While I appreciate the money and resources being pumped into sports like sailing and shooting to win us an Olympic gold medal, I hope more effort can be made to raise the standard of football in this country. If the goal of sports (from a national development perspective) is to rally the country together, then football really has no rivals. Think about it: Would you rather cheer for the Lions as they score against Malaysia in the Asean Football Championship semi-finals, or read in the papers about how our sailors have won an Olympic medal in the Beijing Olympics? Now imagine the Singapore football team beating China or Japan at some Asian football championships or — I dare say — the World Cup!

I mean no disrespect to our sailors and shooters. I have no doubt that they have worked incredibly hard to achieve their Olympic-class standards. But the fact that these are not spectator sports means that the impact of their wins will pale in comparison to football trophies.

Although the Lions are far from achieving the standards required to compete at the international stage, football development funds should not be redirected to other non-spectator sports that are more likely to win us an Olympic medal — unless of course winning an Olympic medal is more important because it fulfils the key performance indicators (KPIs) of some sports officials in Singapore.

Let’s rally behind the Lions as they play in the championship match against Thailand tomorrow!

Response to Singapore Election Watch

I’ve been rather busy lately and didn’t find out till today that I got flamed by fellow blogger Singapore Election Watch over my views on having a Code of Ethics for bloggers. Like Aaron, who also got singled out for personal criticism in that same post, I found it incredibly amusing.

Basically I was accused of being a “fear-mongering mouthpiece from PAP” for arguing that, among other things, bloggers could up their credibility by agreeing on a Code of Ethics to abide by.

I’m not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of all S.E.W.’s points, because it’s hard to have a rational discussion with someone who insists on dogmatically sticking by his preconceived notions of what constitutes free speech and tars everyone who disagrees with him with personal insults and “guilt by association”. (Kudos to him for doing his research on me, though. He failed to discover, however, that I was previously also a civil servant, which presumably makes me the ultimate gahmen sycophant.)

Beyond that, I want to thank zyberzitizen and Dr Huang for putting a positive word for me in their comments.

Blogging break until February

Dear readers,

Happy New Year to all!

I will be going for a high-key reservist call-up from tomorrow until 19 January. It also happens to be a very busy period for my business. (Yes the burden of juggling the running of your own company and NS liabilities.) So I expect that this would leave me very little time to blog until early February. In the meantime, I will still try to respond to comments on my earlier posts.

Thanks for your understanding and see you all back in February.

cheers,
Gerald