Well, according to sources, which I have read from a few Singaporean blogs, this Job Credit scheme, which was claimed to be a new idea, is actually not a new concept. In fact, during the course of the American Presidential campaign against John McCain last year, then-candidate Barack Obama suggested that the government would give $2k to $3k to companies who retain or hire new workers during the recession. It was later scrapped because many Democrats in Congress, in the first week of his administration, said that it was tough to ensure which company did or didn't retrench or hire, and thus almost unworkable. Besides it wouldn't help ordinary workers because the money would go to bigger companies first, and would have little chance of trickling down to ordinary workers.
This is also beside the fact that companies would rather retrench workers- that save them say $2000 per employee- as opposed to saving $900 to retain one. In the end, the bigger savings of $2000 is more than the $900 the government is willing to pay.
Anyway Mr. Low had severely question the credibility of the problem. Unlike the edited version that ST has provided, these three videos give the full context of what Mr. Low of WP has really said in Parliament yesterday about the Job Credit scheme. Needless to say when so many people come out to hammer him, its not because they are right- but because they fear the truth and they fear Mr. Low.
Below are the videos anyway. I leave to you all to judge for yourselves.
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Budget for Singapore in 2009..
Why this Budget could be flawed- despite its best intentions by the government...
I do support this Budget- which was announced this afternoon- by Finance Minister Tharman, in principle. Still I have some qualms about it. These are the reasons why:
1. I think the Budget was too late. They let things go on as it is until now. Other countries had passed an emergency stimulus package from September 2008 in a bid to shore up the economy and to restore confidence, internally and externally.
This meant that while other people in other countries got their cheques early, and saw more infrastructure(and more home insulation being installed) being built, our government has effectively sat on their hands and let the 4th quarter crash into a -12% recession.
Its symbiotic because the government is ran by an 85 year old, who probably doesn't know this recession, if left unchecked, could be become just marginally off the levels of the Great Depression. It could be he still doesn't believe that the recession would fix itself by the end of 2007.
2. We don't know if the current stimulus package is politicised till the point where most of the money becomes pork and goes to those who have supported the PAP openly. Money should go to everyone including those who have not voted the PAP in past elections- this is because everyone has to spend a bit and save a bit to keep the economy above the water. But if its given to the rich and the well connected, then this money wouldn't be returned to the local economy; let's put it in this way: if another civil servant brings his sons and daughters to spend a free $50k rebate on classes with Jamie Oliver in London, UK, then obviously Singapore and its people wouldn't benefit.
The same goes for any child who don't receive education bursaries for local studies at home, but for a Supergrade civil servant's NSF son to disrupt his NS to go to MIT for his uni course.
The same goes for infrastructure: building a handicapped ramp in a poor estate has more impact than say building a 5 storey car park in a well developed, but not a well populated one that has already 6 of these, and which all remains pretty empty.
3. Not enough has been given to those who need the most- even if there is, is it enough? The government is known for its switch-and-bait and/or delaying tactics- making sure that when people receive $500 in tax rebates, the people will end up paying maybe 5x more when they increase living costs, rental, utilities as such. If not they will insist that the people have to put in a precious $100 into your CPF to receive $1000 in CPF funds- which you can't take out.
And then there's the bureaucratic waste when you have to apply for bursaries and such. With a country which is so technologically equipped, compared to the US, and Australia, surely through the income tax submissions, the government should have each and everyone of us in their data, knowing how much we earn and how much do we pay(or not) in income taxes...and in other form of taxes? Then why insist everyone has to apply to see if they're legally able to do so? That only delays time and time is money. If everything is computerised as they insist they are, then spare people, especially old and uneducated ones, from these paperwork, and directly use these computerised data as a way to source out those who need the cheques, job training etc and those who are not or cannot. It saves a ton of trouble, gets money into people's pockets faster, and reduces the chances of the process being politicised.
I do support this Budget- which was announced this afternoon- by Finance Minister Tharman, in principle. Still I have some qualms about it. These are the reasons why:
1. I think the Budget was too late. They let things go on as it is until now. Other countries had passed an emergency stimulus package from September 2008 in a bid to shore up the economy and to restore confidence, internally and externally.
This meant that while other people in other countries got their cheques early, and saw more infrastructure(and more home insulation being installed) being built, our government has effectively sat on their hands and let the 4th quarter crash into a -12% recession.
Its symbiotic because the government is ran by an 85 year old, who probably doesn't know this recession, if left unchecked, could be become just marginally off the levels of the Great Depression. It could be he still doesn't believe that the recession would fix itself by the end of 2007.
2. We don't know if the current stimulus package is politicised till the point where most of the money becomes pork and goes to those who have supported the PAP openly. Money should go to everyone including those who have not voted the PAP in past elections- this is because everyone has to spend a bit and save a bit to keep the economy above the water. But if its given to the rich and the well connected, then this money wouldn't be returned to the local economy; let's put it in this way: if another civil servant brings his sons and daughters to spend a free $50k rebate on classes with Jamie Oliver in London, UK, then obviously Singapore and its people wouldn't benefit.
The same goes for any child who don't receive education bursaries for local studies at home, but for a Supergrade civil servant's NSF son to disrupt his NS to go to MIT for his uni course.
The same goes for infrastructure: building a handicapped ramp in a poor estate has more impact than say building a 5 storey car park in a well developed, but not a well populated one that has already 6 of these, and which all remains pretty empty.
3. Not enough has been given to those who need the most- even if there is, is it enough? The government is known for its switch-and-bait and/or delaying tactics- making sure that when people receive $500 in tax rebates, the people will end up paying maybe 5x more when they increase living costs, rental, utilities as such. If not they will insist that the people have to put in a precious $100 into your CPF to receive $1000 in CPF funds- which you can't take out.
And then there's the bureaucratic waste when you have to apply for bursaries and such. With a country which is so technologically equipped, compared to the US, and Australia, surely through the income tax submissions, the government should have each and everyone of us in their data, knowing how much we earn and how much do we pay(or not) in income taxes...and in other form of taxes? Then why insist everyone has to apply to see if they're legally able to do so? That only delays time and time is money. If everything is computerised as they insist they are, then spare people, especially old and uneducated ones, from these paperwork, and directly use these computerised data as a way to source out those who need the cheques, job training etc and those who are not or cannot. It saves a ton of trouble, gets money into people's pockets faster, and reduces the chances of the process being politicised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
