Jobs Credit: Two reservations and a compliment

Here's a letter from an armchair policy-maker.

Feb 13, 2009

THE Jobs Credit scheme has been allocated $4.5 billion (22 per cent of the $20.5 billion stimulus programme) to provide companies with incentives to retain workers and cut their wage costs. If it goes according to plan, the scheme will reduce the need for companies to retrench workers and reduce their costs, enabling more workers to stay employed and helping companies to stay competitive.

I have two reservations. First, companies are not obliged to keep their employees. They can easily retrench workers and use the cash grants to keep a minimum number of staff. There is no incentive for companies to keep workers on their wage bill if they have minimal orders, even if wage costs are partly subsidised by the Government.

This has been asked and answered. If companies have no choice but to retrench, they will retrench with or without Jobs Credit. But if they are on the margins where a little help can save jobs, Job Credit can make a difference.

This is not to say that the Government should not help companies alleviate the cost of keeping their employees. A more effective scheme is needed though. One way is to include mandatory rules for firms to qualify for the cash grants. Rules to limit retrenchment numbers to 10 to 20 per cent of overall headcount may nudge companies to limit retrenchment numbers. However, this seems inappropriate when the Government wants to encourage companies and not regulate with more rules.

Arguing with himself. Suggest rules, then concede that over-regulation is not the route to go. Edit your letter!

Another more efficient way is a progressive cash grant rate, much like a progressive tax system. Rather than a flat rate of 12 per cent, the Government could adopt a progressive cash grant rate for companies with more employees. For example, a company with fewer than 10 employees might get a 12 per cent cash grant. One with more than 10 employees might get a 24 per cent cash grant or a staggered cash grant of 12 per cent for the first 10 and 24 per cent for the rest. In this way, companies are encouraged to keep their workers.

Let me guess. You run a company with more than 10 employees?

A second consideration is cost-efficiency. Some industries are resilient against recessions. Examples include firms that produce necessities, fast-food restaurants, second-hand car dealers and budget shops. These firms are defensive cyclically and have no reduction in demand for their goods; some may even experience an increase in demand in a recession. Thus, these firms do not need to retrench workers, regardless of the existence of the Jobs Credit scheme. Would it be better for policymakers to consider which industry or sector to target to make the scheme more cost-effective?

Second guess: It's not a second-hand car dealership, a fast-food franchise, or a budget shop.

There are also some doubts as to how the scheme will help companies remain competitive, given that wage costs take up only a small portion of revenue. Singapore's major industries include electronics, financial services and biotechnology. Most have huge fixed costs, and the last two have highly paid employees. With a cap of $300 per employee for the cash grant, how much will it help industries compete? No doubt it will help those that are more labour-intensive and have lower-paid workers, but should Singapore take that direction - providing incentives for companies that are less productive, with less skilled personnel?

Third guess: you're in electronics, or financial services, or biotech. Or have family members in these areas. And your business requires skilled staff.

Reservations notwithstanding, the Government deserves credit for considering the welfare of low- and middle-income workers first. These are the people most affected and the scheme does give employers more incentives to keep these workers. Given the complexity of the current recession, it is important for the Government to implement a fiscal policy that is not only altruistic and timely, but also efficient and effective. Changes should be implemented to make it more versatile and targeted, catering to employers' needs, which would have a multiplier effect and ultimately save jobs and improve welfare.

"Altruistic"? Really? Policies are made based on altruism? Naive or Stupid?

All policies should be decided on pragmatic consideration. The truth is, if there is a lot of retrenchment, there will be a lot of unhappiness, a lot of unemployed people, a lot more crime as people get desperate, and a lot more social problems. The purpose of public policy and govt is to ensure that society functions - that people who want jobs can have jobs, and people who need workers can have workers and their contribution enriches society. Altruism has nothing to do with it, or else public assistance will be $450, or $600 or $1200 instead of the $360 and that was only just raised from $330.

Pragmatically, employment is better than welfare. Growth is better than Recession or Depression.

"Timely, Efficient, and Effective"? Timely, means this rebate needs to get to the beneficiaries as fast as possible. Efficient means in the least troublesome manner. With the least red tape. Jobs Credit as it is is simple and efficient, and can be implemented fuss-free. All the proposals will make things more difficult and will raise costs - to decide what industry should get more, and which should get less, and who gets 12% and who gets more. The proposals as a whole is self-serving and complicates things without contributing anything significant or being more defensible.

In this different crisis, different and flexible solutions need to be considered.

Bernard Ting

Whatever happened to that CNY Chingay?

Feb 13, 2009

I WATCHED this year's Chingay Parade and came away disappointed. I found it hard to believe that a once distinctively ebullient Chinese New Year parade had morphed into an incongruously glitzy gala, utterly divorced from its original spirit and character.

If my memory serves me right, the Chingay Parade was introduced because the Government wanted to revive the festive spirit which was dampened after firecrackers were banned during Chinese New Year in the early 1970s.

The parade then was truly filled with a colourful, festive air. There were Chinese traditional dances, Chinese acrobats, Chinese opera, lion and dragon dances.

Today, such characteristic Chinese New Year staples feature only nominally at the parade. There was no dragon or flag-bearing dances and even the trademark lion dance was sacrificed. Much of this year's Chingay was unrelated to Chinese New Year: Items such as a Christmas-themed float and a finale that bore no resemblance to the roots of the Chingay Parade. In fact, the grandiose finale featured a contingent of grotesque characters such as demons and ghosts, which resembled Halloween more than it did Chinese New Year.

Furthermore, the organisers failed to recognise the irony in including demons and ghosts which are taboo for such an auspicious festival as Chinese New Year.

It would have been more meaningful if the parade had featured a traditional theme such as describing how Chinese New Year is celebrated. With 5,000 years of culture to mine, there should not be a shortage of imaginative offerings.

If the purpose of Chingay today is to boost tourism, I am sure tourists will be eager to discover more about Chinese culture in this part of the world, rather than sample an attempt at mimicking a Disney parade.

Nge Tuck Long

[I was thinking that this was going to be a rant by a indignant traditionalist but if what he wrote is true - no lion or dragon dance, and no flag tossing. And Demons and ghosts in the finale, then yes, I agree with him. But I wonder if part of the reason is that there are few or even no performers for these arts anymore? Where would people practice? Who wants their kids to grow up as acrobats?

We may have to hire foreign talent. And then the complaint will be that we have to use foreign talent.

Alternatively, we need to have a National Lion Dance School. Or it should be part of the Sports School?]

Two years a long time to wait for additional CPF housing grant

Jan 26, 2009

I REFER to the Budget news about increasing the additional Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grant income ceiling from $4,000 to $5,000.

From what I know, one needs to have worked for two consecutive years before one qualifies for this grant as HDB considers it a form of welfare benefit. The main goal of Workfare benefits like the grant is to get unemployed people into paid work, and ensuring that lower-income people work first before they get married.

However, two years is a long time. Some of us may not be able to make it for two years, so we may have to delay our wedding until we can make the timeline.

In addition, as the grant is tiered - those in the $2,000 to $3,000 income bracket get a higher grant than those in the $3,000 to $4,000 income bracket - some applicants may cheat to get a higher grant.

Also, some may get higher bonuses than others, which may skew the results even if their basic salary is lower.

It might be better to fix the grant at a certain level, regardless of income bracket.

Leong Hsin Yih (Ms)

[Let me guess. Ms Leong and/or her husband to be, has worked less than 2 years, has a basic pay (together with her husband-to-be) of less than $3000, but got some bonuses or commission that pushes their pay to over $3000.]

Ties with virtual pets not 'normal'

Jan 25, 2009

I cringed upon reading 'New leash of life' (Jan 4).

Reading about people who indulge in virtual relationships with 'pets' - which are nothing more than computer graphics - makes me wonder if such individuals are mentally sound.

It is hard for me to imagine having any meaningful relationship with something that is not real.

What worries me is how so many 'normal' people actually think and act as if such relationships are real and normal. The reasons they give are sadly incredible.

People have become too selfish to invest love and time in building real, lasting and meaningful relationships.

Pragmatism and materialism have translated into lovelessness in a world filled with people who are ultimately seeking just one thing - love.

Also, all things born must die one day. To fear and deny the reality of death is to deny the very nature of life and humanity.


Maheswari Rani Krishna (Ms)

[I've included this letter as an example of narrow-mindedness. People like to condemn what they do not understand. If a person having a relationship with a virtual pet is not normal, what about those people who feed stray cats to the point where they spend hundreds of dollars a month. Are those people normal? If the relationship with a virtual pet is illusory, are relationship with real pets more real?

We anthropomorphise our pets, get them human names, interprete their behaviour on our terms and conclude that they love us in return. But are these not projections of our human emotions. If so, does it matter if we project them onto a flesh and blood being or onto a computer programme?

To be sure, I feel as the writer does, that virtual pets are at best a distraction and a minor indulgence. I won't have the time or inclination to forge a relationship with a virtual pet. But it doesn't mean that other people may not, and it is not for me to say that their relationship is abnormal or more abnormal than any other. If it helps them and it doesn't harm anyone else, then who am I to condemn?]

Making organ trading win-win for patient and donor

Jan 24, 2009

TO PAY for organ transplant, especially to live donors, is a sensitive topic, and there will never be an absolute solution acceptable to all.

However, a 'win-win' solution can be achieved without Man playing the role of God.

I am against organ trading per se, but if a sufferer can find a willing and matching donor for a fee, without coercion and undue influence, the transplant could result in less suffering for both parties - the sick patient regains his health, while the donor receives economic assistance.

[This is an example of simplistic thinking. Anyone can say without coercion and undue influence, but the moment payment is mention there is material influence. Therein lies the crux of organ trading: How can one remove the influence of economics from a commercial transaction?]

To those who are adamantly against 'paid' donors, please empathise with the sufferers - and the pain is endured by both the patient and his caregivers. The brutal outcome, at times, is that the caregiver dies before the patient, due to age, stress and a host of other issues.

Let us not assume that the donor is always poor. He may be altruistic, sincere and willing. The aid he receives helps to cover his medical costs for a deed well done. Why should he be made to suffer financially when he helps a fellow man?

On a similar issue, where organs are harvested from a dead individual under Human Organ Transplant Act, it is commendable if his family receives some form of financial assistance. The money can go towards his funeral expenses and help his living family members, like an insurance policy.

Payment is not compulsory, but for recipients who are willing and financially able, it will lighten the load of the dead individual's family. The money is not a reward but help to pay the costs of the living - and the living need to live.

Most important, if the donor is condemned to death, his intention to donate his kidneys (I guess they are the only salvageable organs) to save someone else is admirable.

However, to eliminate even an iota of doubt, only one of the kidneys should be donated to a named patient in lieu of some form of payment.

[How does that remove any doubt? Yes, cynical me wondered about the One-eyed Dragon's donation to a rich man. Admirable? Was he altruistic? I sincerely doubt it. Did he get a deal for his next of kin? I'm sure of it. Was he wrong to do so. I don't think so. I'm not going to judge him. That is for God to do so. Did he get anything for himself? Not directly, but certainly the idea that his donated kidneys will be reciprocated with some benefits to this next of kin would have been some comfort to him as he waited to be hanged. As for the suggestion to have one kidney assigned to someone on the waiting list, isn't this like robbing a condemned man? No the best thing to do in such a case is to be silent about it. Promoting death row donations raises too many ethical and moral issues. Are people more likely to be condemned to death to meet the shortfall in organs? If Death row donations become a significant source of organs, is this going to be another issue if and when we consider doing away with the death penalty? The moral and ethical minefield is best avoided.]

The other must go to the long waiting list of patients who enjoy an added chance of benefiting from this alternative source. I hope this will silence all those who doubt donor sincerity and suspect the donor 'auctioned' his kidneys to the two highest bidders.

[I don't suspect. I believe. It is a logical and rational thing to do. And you can hope all you want, but the silence will be a knowing silence, not a concurring one.]

I am in no position to discuss the advantages of patients who can afford to pay, but I would like to see better chances for those on the waiting list.

Philip Kwek

'It never crossed my mind Mr Tan was bragging.'

MS VERONIQUE A. DAWSON: 'I am an average Singaporean living in an HDB flat. My husband is the sole breadwinner. Travel is not a necessity for my family; it's a luxury. It never crossed my mind that Mr Tan Yong Soon was bragging about his holiday in France. Instead, I saw a man who had the courage to take extended leave from work and trust his subordinates. Also, I saw a family who were close, who did not just want a luxury holiday but to take something away from their trip. In this instance, knowledge about cooking fine cuisine. To Mr Tan, $45,000 may seem affordable. To others, it is a year's salary. Having said that, it is not uncommon to read profiles of top professionals peppered with questions such as where they live and the brand of car they drive. Do the answers to such questions constitute bragging as well? There will always be those who can afford more than others. Jealousy is not the mark of a mature society. Success is for the taking. It is up to us to work hard and achieve it.'

----------------

Has anyone thought if the article was written by a celebrity or ST reporter, would it even mentioned by a minister during Parliament session?

I've read the article (well written), it just like any travel articles that ST publishes. If I've the time and money, I would go to Paris to learn cooking too.

I'm sure ministers do go to expensive holidays or buy expensive items. Is he trying to be politically correct to "tick-off" the Permanent Secretary. This is hypocrisy.

Just because the economy is not doing well, lives still have to go on. There are always rich, poor and middle-class people in a capitalist society.
Posted by: microaaa at Thu Jan 22 14:48:46 SGT 2009

-------------------
Jan 22, 2009

Perm sec's French holiday: He should be lauded for creativity, resolve and effort

I READ with disbelief that Mr Tan Yong Soon, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, had been censured by his bosses ('Perm sec's article showed lack of sensitivity', Tuesday) for writing in The Straits Times about his cooking holiday at Le Cordon Bleu in Paris ('Cooking up the holiday spirit', Jan 3).

His 'discordance' was his alleged insensitivity to the financial hardships people are undergoing currently. But I assess the whole episode differently.

A struggling young chef attending the Cordon Bleu school on borrowed money or a scholarship would be lauded for his initiative, determination and hard work. The top civil servant was thinking out of the box and trying to broaden his life experience. The creativity, resolve and effort - qualities that deserve respect and admiration - of both individuals are the same. Why do people see red (or perhaps green) when a permanent secretary does something creative? That baffles me.

Whether times are good or bad, people need rest and recreation to remain healthy and alert. Mr Tan chose to spend his recreation time and money on a course outside his profession. It is not as if he had spent $45,000 on a luxury cruise to nowhere, or a skiing or overseas golf trip. Even if he had done that, what would be wrong? If he went on a good and invigorating holiday and came back refreshed and recharged to serve his ministry, that can only benefit the Government and the public. Better still, when he writes and publishes the story of his holiday, people like me, who cannot afford to travel, can marvel at a world outside our own.

For the course, Mr Tan got to travel to Paris, immerse himself in French culture and learn French cuisine. This must have been value for money. To me, he was prudent, thoughtful, creative and wise. I note also that he had inspired his family to join him in the course, underscoring his strong family values.

Contrary to his detractors, I think Mr Tan demonstrated by example how a sensible civil servant and his family might spend a meaningful holiday together.

Rachel Lim (Ms)

[These are the more rational (to me anyway) positions taken by forum page writers and comments. There are others which are outright "green" and "sour" in tone. ]

Terrorists are responsible for their own actions

Jan 10, 2009

I READ with interest the article, 'Terror threat: New approach needed' by Professor Rohan Gunaratna (Jan 2), and also the comments by Ms Faizah Zakaria on Tuesday ('Gaza: Why Muslims are outraged').

Recently, while waiting for the train at an MRT station, I saw a message on a video monitor that read something like: 'You are born neither an extraordinary nor a common person. You become what you make of yourself.'

Terrorists are terrorists because they choose to become so. No one made them terrorists. Yet we blame one or another religious group. Let us stop that.

Individuals who choose to adopt terrorist ways by displaying intolerance and disregard for others will face the consequences alone.

This lesson is simple, but cannot be taught merely by spreading literacy, democracy and job creation. It needs education.

Education is provided at home by parents and elders, at school by teachers and senior students, at the workplace by fellow workers and supervisors or managers, and at social gatherings by friends.

Singapore's comprehensive achievements since 1965 demonstrate this simple lesson in action.

Mohan Shandilya

[Certainly, I agree that Terrorists have to be held responsible for their actions. But to say that they choose to be terrorists is both true and false. Nobody wakes up one morning and decides, "hmmm... terrorism... that sounds like a career for me! Short hours, excitement, no need to worry about retirement. I think I'll sign up!"

Their circumstances and their environment shape and limit their options.

To say that education alone is the answer and that Singapore has the answer is simplistic, idealistic and more than a bit arrogant.]