Time for a new formula?

Explore a way to de-link property tax from rental values driven by foreigners

Dec 30, 2010

Letter from Thian Tai Chew

WITH effect from Jan 1, 2011, Singapore's property tax will shift from a flat 4-per-cent rate to a system of progressive property tax rates based on Annual Values (AV) of these properties. As a result, I will save about 8 per cent of the property tax payable for next year. Am I happy with this saving?

Let's look at the formula for calculating the property tax rate. It is based on the annual value of your property.

According to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS) circular, the AV is the estimated market rent if the property were to be let. It is determined based on the market rentals of comparable properties.

It is no secret that the rental market in Singapore is heavily influenced by the demand from foreigners working in Singapore. The more foreigners we attract here, the higher the demand for rental housing and, hence, higher rental rates.

It begs the question then - why should property tax be tagged to the influx of foreigners coming into Singapore ?

I am not against paying property tax, but I am against the link of property tax to the demand by foreigners coming to Singapore to work.

These foreigners, most of whom would go for rental housing, do not pay property tax. It is fair to assume that landlords would have already priced the property tax into the rental, hence jacking up the rental prices, which in turn would jack up the property tax as the AVs are now higher.

It is a vicious cycle and as long as we continue to attract more foreigners into Singapore, the only outcome for such a formula is that the property tax would go higher and higher.

As an owner-occupied property owner who does not partake of the rental market, I do not see why I should be taxed based on the actions of other people who are renting out their property.

Since the Government has explicitly mentioned that attracting foreign talents will remain as one of our national policies, the property tax moving forward is going only one way - up.

I do not see the rationale for paying property tax that is linked to the outcome of another unrelated policy.

It's time for the IRAS to explore a formula that would de-link the property tax from rental values that are heavily influenced by the influx of foreigners.

So the answer to my earlier question: Am I happy with the tax savings for next year? Yes, any saving is always good, but I do not like what is coming beyond 2011.

[Eh, goondu. Owner-occupier pays concessionary tax. Owners who rent or sublets their flats pay 10%. Your 4% is a concessionary rate.

More importantly, the annual value is ridiculously undervalued! (don't tell IRAS!) You look at your property tax bill and tell me you will rent your flat for annual rent equivalent to the AV assessed by IRAS.

Three room HDB flats have AVs of less than $7000 (that's about $550 per month. FOR THE WHOLE FLAT! Four rooms' AV is less than $9000 or less than $750 pm for the whole flat. This is SERIOUS under-valuation. But I don't believe IRAS is stupid. I believe this is another way they give tax concession to home owners.

So don't ask stupid questions about new formula for property tax. You are already getting a GREAT DEAL!

Idiot!]

Upsized out of a lucky draw

Dec 29, 2010

ENTICED by a "Say Aloha to the teriyaki chicken sandwich" promotion - and a chance to win a holiday in a lucky draw - outside the Carl's Jr restaurant at Jurong Point, my wife and I decided to try out the new teriyaki chicken sandwich for lunch on Monday.

When placing our orders, the counter employee asked if I would like to upsize my meal and I agreed on the upsize and I added on another pack of onion rings.

After being served our meal, we realised we were not given any entry coupon for the lucky draw. I then approached the counter and the manager asked to see my receipt. He said because I had upsized my meal, I did not qualify for the draw.

Surely this should be clearly stated so that customers would know not to upsize and pay extra if they do not want to be deprived of the lucky draw opportunity.

Alvin Alexis

[Ok. Granted Carl's Jr marketing and promotion is a little weird. This is a completely strange way of running a promotion. BUT if your choice of lunch is decided by lucky draws and freebies... you don't really know what you want do you?

Put another way. When you upsized your meal, you became a premium customer to Carl's Jr who then felt that it was not nice to have their premium customer's particulars added to the list that they were going to sell to telemarketers. Therefore they didn't give you your lucky draw coupon where you will have a 1 in 8 million chance of winning a holiday (terms and conditions apply, holiday must commence no earlier than the 26 Dec 2011 and be completed before the 31st Dec. Action figures sold separately. Batteries not included. Actual holiday may differ from illustration. Alcoholic beverages are chargeable. Offer void where prohibited by law. Prizes are not exchangeable or refundable), and will definitely be harassed by 352 telemarketers over the next 2 months.

You got the better deal.]

Japan's Strategic Position

Dec 25, 2010

Don't shunt history into a corner

I REFER to the commentary by academic Heng Yee Kuang ('Best not to push Japan into a corner'; Tuesday).

Japan is not a landlocked country. It has access in all directions - by air or sea.

[Thus implying that Japan cannot be cornered and has strategic maneuverability. Which is stupid. Move where? So someone attacks from the east, and Japan moves it's entire force to the west? Someone invades your exclusive economic zone in the south, and you just move your fishing fleet to the north? Dumb.]

After the recent incident involving a collision between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol boat near the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the 'sleeping giant' suddenly woke up and started announcing new changes in defence policy.

Its focus seems to be to ensure that this claimed territory in the East China Sea remains under Japanese control.

So, where did the writer find evidence of China trying to corner Japan?

[China making a big incident out of it, demanding the release of the Chinese captain charged with ramming the Japanese defence force vessel, demanding restitution, threatening sanctions, cutting off rare earth minerals exports to Japan, etc. And by the way, the article was not just about China. The article pointed out that Japan is being pressured by China and Russia, with N.Korea as a bit player. That the writer focus only on China shows a flawed and biased reading of the article. ]

The article quoted a Japanese academic's concern that 'Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again'. Re-fight China? Who invaded whom in the past? Let us not forget history.

[And here the penny dropped. Yes, since Japan invaded China and committed atrocities such as the Nanking massacre, this now entitles China to get what's fair, eh?]

Chen Sen Lenn


Dec 21, 2010

Best not to push Japan into a corner

By Heng Yee Kuang

JAPAN'S announcement of sweeping changes to its defence postures last week reflects mounting strategic unease at being trapped in the increasingly rough neighbourhood of North East Asia. This sense of multiple threats bearing down on the nation from various directions was conveyed by Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who said: 'Our country is encircled by severe security situations...'

To begin with, there were the 'pincer movements' by China and Russia ganging up to press home their advantage. A joint statement released by Presidents Hu Jintao and Dmitri Medvedev in September soon after the Senkaku/Diaoyu trawler incident had both sides agreeing to support each other's 'core interests', including national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity (code words for territorial disputes in Japanese eyes). Coincidentally or not, President Medvedev then became the first Russian leader to visit the disputed Kurile islands shortly afterwards. While unrelated, North Korea's shelling of the South's Yeonpyeong island further stoked the feeling of a Japan under siege.

Putting the squeeze on Tokyo not only has the potential to awaken the sleeping giant, but can also backfire on Moscow and Beijing. In my discussions with leading academics, military officials and students in Tokyo, I found there was apprehension about how the Japanese people will react to such pressure. One young student said to me that he was very concerned about the nationalist backlash from the younger generation frustrated at Japan's weakness.

Although young Japanese are usually depicted as more interested in anime and manga than high politics, one Internet opinion poll earlier this month of 500 teens in junior high school rated the Senkaku clash as the news story of 2010.

More than its gaffes, the Naoto Kan Cabinet suffers heavily from a perception of its diplomatic weakness. Plummeting opinion polls are front-page headlines on leading dailies like the Asahi Shimbun.

A Fuji News Network survey showed the Cabinet's approval rating plunging to 21.8 per cent early this month. Protests denouncing both China and the Kan government have attracted crowds in the low thousands, a relatively large number in Japan. Cabinet Office data released last Sunday indicates the number of Japanese who feel favourable towards China has reached a low of 20 per cent, dropping 18.5 percentage points in just a year.

China was once viewed as more an opportunity than a threat. The previous Hatoyama administration came to power peddling the notion of closer ties with China and distancing Japan from America. However, China's recent assertiveness has pushed Tokyo back into Washington's embrace.

The new National Defence Programme Guidelines document employs the strongest language ever used to describe China's military modernisation and maritime activities. 'These movements, coupled with the lack of transparency in its military and security matters,' the document asserts, 'have become a matter of concern for the region and the international community.' The previous guideline in 2004 merely said Tokyo would be 'attentive' to China's future intentions.

As a result, Japan will now re-deploy forces to the remote south-west Nansei Shoto island group where China has territorial claims, abandoning its Cold War focus on a Soviet invasion of northern Hokkaido. More submarines, early warning radar systems and surface-to-ship missiles will be stationed closer to the disputed Senkaku islands to fill what the document calls a 'defence vacuum'. A second squadron of warplanes will also be added at Naha, Okinawa.

Despite its pacifist outlook, Japan's military is in fact larger than Britain's. It deploys the most advanced naval forces in the Pacific after the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. Japan also has one of the highest military budgets in the world. Deployments overseas have for years been testing the limits of the country's post- World War II pacifist Constitution.

Further provocation from Pyongyang, Beijing or Moscow will only provide more ammunition to those Japanese who are seeking to loosen the constitutional constraints on their country's military power. While no one seriously expects Japan to once again rampage across Asia, an expanded role for its technologically advanced Self-Defence Forces and a paradigm shift where Tokyo abandons engagement and confronts China directly is hardly in the interest of Beijing and Moscow.

Already, the latest guidelines hint at Japan's desire to break out of its 'encirclement' by courting allies such as Australia and South Korea. It should not be forgotten that Japan is considered widely to be a so-called 'virtual nuclear weapon state'. It can produce nuclear weapons relatively quickly.

A leading Japanese academic told me privately of his concern that Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again. Do China and Japan really need several major wars, like the European powers did, before finally establishing structures for peace and cooperation? Full-blown conflict is certainly not yet on the cards but driving Japan into a corner would be a short-sighted and counter-productive move.

The writer, a Singaporean, is assistant professor of international relations at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. He is now a visiting scholar at Waseda University in Tokyo.

[The basic point of the article as I understand it is that extra-legal (or outright illegal) strategies regarding disputed territories will only raise the temperature of the issues, and may eventually spill over into confrontation. The proper approach is to use established international dispute resolution processes to sort out disagreements. However, that is not route being taken at the moment. Attitudes and postures "backed" by historical grievances as implied by the letter-writer serves little purpose, except to perhaps justify those extra-legal activities and strategies.

Still, there is a right and wrong way to go about protecting one's interest... ST Editorial below summarises.]


EDITORIAL
Japan right and wrong on defence posture

ANY Japanese government would be mindful that raising the nation's military preparedness, however justified, will cause unease. First is the arms buildup in North Asia extending to the subcontinent and South-east Asia. Japan's latest defence review stressing a rapid-response capability will accelerate the race. A buildup is inevitable anyway to keep trade routes open, but this is slight mitigation when productive spending should have priority in societies moving towards middle-income status. Second, countries that bore the brunt of the Japanese imperial advance during the last war will wonder whether the post-war pacifism, which held when Japan was peerless in Asia, is starting to unravel with China having displaced it. Unlike in Germany, militarist instincts are alive among sections of the Japanese elite. Thus, the incomplete atonement for wartime acts and denials of history.

And yet, and yet. Japan may end up looking not unduly aggressive for the new defence doctrine of meeting contingencies rather than imagining an old-fashioned invasion, from Russia for instance. The surprise of the military reassessment out last Friday was that it had not been updated sooner. In the six years since the last review undertaken by the Liberal Democrats, economic strides made by other Asian nations concurrent with force modernisation had left Japan looking under-invested. Maritime and territorial disputes in the East and South China seas in which Japan is involved have been longstanding. But North Asia is a changed theatre with China and South Korea more at odds as they progress, and North Korea defying norms of rational conduct as it prepares for leadership change. Then there is China's unstoppable growth in all fields of contest. Japan's treaty linkages with the United States oblige Tokyo to relook its defence posture in the light of what is spoken of as China's 'assertiveness', as if this is not a natural progression of gathering strength.

This is all very clinical on paper. In practice, Japan has needlessly got off badly with China by declaring that its realignment of forces to the south near China, and its spending on surveillance and missile systems are on account of its neighbour. In helping the US retain mobility in the Pacific, Japan should be emphasising it is defending the peace. And that this is essential for economic growth and recovery across the world. Then there will be no cause for fresh Beijing-Tokyo tension, which has arisen as China has objected to being targeted. Japan ought to take an all encompassing approach in relations with China, to stress also political and cultural collaboration. And military ties need not be a contradiction.

Dos and don'ts when flagging cabs

Dec 23, 2010

I REFER to Mr Muhamad Noh Sapari's letter about errant cabbies ('Waiting in the rain as cabs whizz past'; Dec 7).

I have been a cabby for 10 years, and have had many experiences with passengers flagging down a cab at traffic lights, along bus lanes during operational hours or at times when stopping abruptly would cause serious accidents.

While it is not excusable not to stop, passengers and other road users' safety must come first, service second and fare third.

So let's be fair to all. If people want a safe ride home, flag down a cab at the correct spot, do it in advance, place your arms high and out, stay out of the bus lanes, keep a distance from big obstructing vehicles such as lorries and trucks and, more importantly, be patient.

Tan Ah Chuan

[Thank you Mr Tan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have seen passengers flag cabs at the last minute and I have seen brainless drivers screech to a halt with no notice just to pick up these passengers, causing accidents or near accidents. It is not unthinkable for the passengers to then abandon the cab for the next cab leaving the driver to deal with the accident. Of course the driver is at fault, but the passengers bear part of the blame too.

Finding a safe place to hail a cab is also important. I have seen passengers try to stop a cab in the middle of a junction! ]

Award merit bursaries with no strings attached

Dec 20, 2010

Bursary limit

MRS ELIZABETH NG: 'The Edusave Merit Bursary is given annually to students whose monthly household incomes are less than $4,000 and who rank within the top 25 per cent in terms of academic performance in their school. I find this unfair to students whose family incomes are above the income limit. All students need encouragement. Students whose household incomes are above $4,000 could be given a token in recognition of their efforts. These can be in the form of a collar pin, badge or certificate.'

Dec 22, 2010

I AGREE with Mrs Elizabeth Ng's comments on Monday ('Bursary limit') about the need to recognise students' efforts.

For the past few years, my children have been in the top 25 per cent in terms of academic performance in their school, but did not qualify for the Edusave Merit Bursary because our monthly household income is well above $4,000.

Since this is a scheme for students based on their academic performance, then eligibility should not be linked to their household income. The funds should be awarded to them with no strings attached.

The money can be credited into their Post-Secondary Education Account or their savings account for their future educational needs.

Ng Geok Hui (Madam)

[Bursuries are not scholarships. Scholarships are based purely on merit. Bursaries are intended to help needy students. So an income limit for eligibility is justifiable. Mdm Ng may argue for a higher income limit, but not no limit. Or if not limited by household income, then by other measures.

As for recognition, there was this comment:]

I am a parent myself and I don't agree that we should give awards for all students in the top 25% of the school. Most schools already award students for being top in the class. And bursaries are for the ones who need the financial help. Explain to your child that there are some who can't even afford to buy their own textbooks. Don't shelter them so much. Teach the child to be more civic minded.

Posted by: tiffangel at Wed Dec 22 13:35:10 SGT 2010

[Good for tiffangel! Sensible parent. Renews my faith that most parents are even-minded people.]

Stop the blame game

Dec 17, 2010

I CANNOT fully agree with Mr Sebastian Tan who put the blame on the players for the Lion's loss to Vietnam in the AFF Suzuki Cup ("Blame the players, not the coach"; Wednesday).

Was it not the coach's responsibility to ensure that the players were psychologically, physically, technically and tactically fit for the competition? If not, why did he not recommend that Singapore pull out of the tournament? Why did he promise that the team would make the final?

I am sure coach Raddy Avramovic has good reasons for his inability to get the team to the level he desired.

I am also sure the players have tonnes of excuses for their inept performance. But they are not really important even though some may be legitimate.

For Singapore sports to progress, the blaming must stop. There is nothing much the coaches and players can do by themselves. It is time for the sports authorities, including the Singapore National Olympic Council, the Singapore Sports Council and the national sports associations to collectively take responsibility.

Lim Teong Chin

[So you blame the sports authorities, the SNOC, SCC and NSA? How is this stopping the "blame game"? Sailing Singapore is an NSA, what responsibility have they got for the football team's shortcomings? And in assuming the coach and players have reasons (or excuses) for their failures, he is absolving them of blame (and so playing the blame game).

Instead of focusing on a specific failure, this idiot wants to expand to generalities. Yes, at generalities, it's everybody's fault. It's a wonder he stopped where he did and did not proceed to blame the govt and the PAP.

But hey, guess what? I'm sure they have good reasons, even legitimate ones for why they are not respionsible for the Football team's poor performance. Like, THEY ARE NOT THE FUCKING FOOTBALL TEAM.

Even if it is true that the sports hierarchy has some responsibility for the failures, the writer has not stated what these are. This forum letter is a waste of time and space. Must be slow news day.]

Picture perfect harmony

Dec 15, 2010

(From left) Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Venerable Fa Rong and Syed Isa sharing a light moment at an event to honour the mufti with the Inter-Religious Organisation award. -- ST FILE PHOTO

I AM an American living in Indonesia and over the past 30 years, have made dozens of trips to Singapore.

The Prime News photograph yesterday (above) of Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Buddhist monk the Venerable Fa Rong and Mufti Syed Isa Mohamed Semait nearly moved me to tears ('Tributes flow as mufti gets award').

I wish my native country as a whole could demonstrate the religious tolerance that Singapore has been able to cultivate.

Certainly there are good, tolerant people everywhere, and the United States has many who think like I do.

But in Singapore, it is the norm, and immediately observable everywhere you go. On a daily basis, I see Christian, Muslim and Hindu office workers sharing a meal at a kopitiam (coffee shop), exchanging smiles or pleasantries on the street or otherwise kindly extending help to one another.

In all my trips here, I have not once witnessed religion-fuelled hostility or prejudice.

My travels have taken me to all corners of the world, yet I have never found a country that comes even close to the religious and spiritual maturity that Singaporeans demonstrate towards one another.

Many letters complain about life in Singapore, but from an outsider's perspective, what a beautifully pluralistic and enviable society Singapore has.

In many ways, and especially in their tolerance for one another, Singaporeans are a beacon to the world.

Jack Blaylock

[Cynical Singaporeans will immediately jump on this and say how much of this may be posed photo-ops and how the facade may not reflect the truth. Certainly I feel a little discomfited to hear the writer say that we have spiritual maturity.

Well, maybe that might not be the correct phrase, but I think I understand what he means. Maybe we are not 100% honest, or sincere. Maybe we do harbour little niggling resentment or disdain for other faiths, but at least we have enough respect to show tolerance, and enough understanding to show mutual respect, and enough courtesy to keep our less flattering opinions to ourselves.

A little courtesy goes a long way. Respecting boundaries and agreeing to live and let live is the way to go forward.

So yes, compared to many other countries, Singapore has it a lot better and has a lesson for many other countries.]

Update: 12 Mar 2011.

A video in support of the letter writer. A muslim tries to pray while Christians taunt and mock him. So different from Egypt where Christians protected the Muslims when they prayed from pro-Mubarak forces trying to break up the protesters in Tahrir Square.

Update: Mar 22, 2011

Florida pastor burns Quran

GAINESVILLE (FLORIDA): A controversial American evangelical preacher on Sunday oversaw the burning of a copy of the Quran in a small Florida church after finding the Muslim holy book 'guilty' of crimes.

The burning was carried out by pastor Wayne Sapp under the supervision of pastor Terry Jones, who last September drew sweeping condemnation over his plan to ignite a pile of Qurans on the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Sunday's event was presented as a trial in which the Quran was found 'guilty' and 'executed'. The jury deliberated for about eight minutes.

The holy book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the centre of the church, and Mr Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter. The book burned for around 10 minutes while some onlookers posed for photos.

Mr Jones had drawn trenchant condemnation from many people, including top US leaders, over his plan to burn the Qurans last September.

He did not carry out his plan then and vowed he never would, saying he had made his point.
But this time, he said he had been 'trying to give the Muslim world an opportunity to defend their book', but did not receive any answer. He said he felt that he could not have a real trial without a real punishment.

While there were public protests against Mr Jones' Sept 11 activities, this event was largely ignored. The event was open to the public, but fewer than 30 people attended.

Ms Jadwiga Schatz, who came to show support for Mr Jones, expressed concern that Islam was growing in Europe. 'These people, for me, are like monsters,' she said. 'I hate these people.'

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Supplementary Retirement Scheme works best for the rich

Dec 5, 2010

I refer to the article, 'Saving a little today will go a long way' (Nov14), which shows how the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) helps taxpayers save on taxes.

SRS works best for high-income earners. For the rest of us, the savings are uncertain and the scheme can even result in some paying more taxes, as I will explain.

SRS contributions are tax-free up to $11,475 per year, but only for money that goes in. Unlike the Central Provident Fund, you must pay taxes - on half the money - when it comes out. Withdrawals are over a 10-year period beginning at the statutory retirement age, which is now 62.

Why does SRS sometimes result in little or no tax savings? There are two key reasons.

First, the article explains that withdrawals before age 62 entail a 5per cent penalty plus taxes on 100 per cent of the money withdrawn, which 'includes whatever capital gains you might have made from your investments using your SRS funds'.

Actually, non-early withdrawals also entail a capital gain tax. SRS also taxes dividends and interest. All of these are normally tax-free.

Second, the article says: 'For a person with a taxable income of $100,000, a $10,000 contribution works out to him paying $1,400 less tax based on current tax rates.'

Yes, but that is only one side of it. It's the tax savings when you put money in. How about when you take the money out? Could you pay even more taxes then?

Yes. Suppose $10,000 per year goes into the SRS from age 22. At 7per cent interest, it will grow to $2million by age 62 and one would withdraw roughly $200,000 per year for 10 years and pay taxes on half, which is $100,000 per year.

[If you're making $100k at age 22. I think that qualifies as rich.If you can consistently get 7% interest for 40 years, you are incredibly savvy investor. This is about what the highly risky mini-Bonds were offering. Now either 7% returns incurs that kind of risk, or the mini-Bonds were wrongly assessed in terms of risk. But at this point there are few investments that can steadily offer that kind of returns. And if you can withdraw $200k per year for your retirement out of a nest egg of $2m, I think you rank in the well-off if not rich category. Most likely, a 22 year old will not be making enough to contribute to the SRS. There are too many discretionary expenditure at that stage in life. Even at 35, most people may not have the means to save to the SRS consistently. But never mind.]

It incurs total taxes of $7,100 x 10 years = $71,000, which exceeds $1,400 x 40 years = $56,000 in tax savings.

[I don't know how he arrives at $7,100 taxes per year for 10 years, but for a so-called financially-savvy adviser, he totally ignores concepts of present values and future values. Put another way: Would you agree to have $56k now which you don't have to repay for 40 years, and at the end of 40 years, you will pay back $71k in fixed installments of 10 years. Ok, that's not exactly fair either. It should be $1,400 per year for 40 years, after which you pay back $7,100 per year for 10 years. Note that this $71,000 is based on his computation that said saver/investor will turn $400,000 to $2m over 40 years based on an investment return of 7%. I suspect that the figure will work out to less than that for most people because they will save for less than 40 years, and their returns will be less than 7%. ]

Why? The reason comes back to SRS taxing your capital gains, dividends and interest income.

In general, SRS works best for the rich. It offers a good chance of paying lower taxes if your tax bracket is (i) high when the money goes in, (ii) low when it comes out and (iii) if you invest late in life in low-yield securities, such as bonds.

Larry Haverkamp

[I usually like his analysis of financial and investment issues, but this is just biased and unrealistic. Perhaps he has an agenda - people are foregoing investing with him in order to squirrel away their savings in SRS? I don't know.

A rebuttal of sorts below.]

Dec 19, 2010

Why SRS accounts are a good way to save

While some dispute benefits of supplementary retirement scheme, it's possible to enjoy good return on investments

By Goh Eng Yeow

Around this time of the year as the annual bonus payout approaches, I find myself promoting a little-known savings programme known as the supplementary retirement scheme (SRS).

This is a scheme established in 2001 to complement the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which allows a saver to put up to $11,475 a year into a special account that can be opened at DBS Bank, OCBC Bank or United Overseas Bank and enjoy a tax relief on his contribution.

As Singaporeans live longer and healthier lives, relying solely on their CPF to keep them comfortably retired during their golden years may not be sufficient, especially if a big chunk of it is used to service monthly housing instalments.

What SRS offers as an incentive to savers is the tax savings they get from the money they put away into an SRS account.

Let me explain.

If you have a taxable income of $100,000 and you put away $10,000 into your SRS account, you can enjoy savings of $1,400 on your income tax bill the following year.

It is a tidy sum not to sneeze at, especially if you have the discipline to keep squirrelling away the same sum into your SRS account every year.

After 10 years, you will reap considerable savings of $14,000 on your income tax and that is not including any interest or investment returns which you might have earned from those savings.

After reaching the mandatory retirement age - now fixed at 62 - you can withdraw up to $40,000 tax-free from your SRS a year.

This works out to a maximum tax-free sum of $400,000, as SRS withdrawals can be staggered over a period of 10 years after retirement.

Data furnished by the Government shows that the effort to popularise the SRS is slowly bearing fruit.

Between 2007 and last year, the number of SRS account holders jumped by 12,322 - or 30 per cent - to 53,656, as more Singaporeans learnt about the scheme and decided to sign up.

This is a significant improvement over earlier years when the number of account openings languished at a sluggish pace.

Still, this number is a far cry from the 400,000-odd taxpayers, earning more than $60,000 a year, and who may reap some tax savings by putting some money into an SRS account.

When a saver squirrels away some money into an SRS account, he does not need to keep it locked up in a cash deposit. He can use the money in the SRS account to buy unit trusts, insurance policies or even stocks listed on the Singapore Exchange.

But the few times I had written to raise public awareness of the SRS, I received feedback from a few disgruntled readers who disputed the benefits it bestowed on the ordinary saver.

One reader noted that there was a 5 per cent penalty charge for early withdrawal. The sum withdrawn would also be treated as part of his taxable income for that year.

Doesn't this smack of a disguised capital gains tax, he asked.

There was another reader who griped that the SRS was useless for savers who were not interested in buying financial products from banks.

'If you already plan to buy things like unit trusts from that pretty girl in the bank, you can consider putting money into SRS, enjoy some tax savings and make her very happy for closing the sale and getting a commission out of it,' he wrote.

A third reader raised the intriguing possibility that a successful investor may actually end up footing an even bigger tax bill on the monies he withdraws from his SRS account after retirement.

While not disputing the merits of the points they raised, I can use only my experience as an SRS account-holder to point out some of the benefits.

I have been diligently putting money into my SRS account every year since its inception.

Going through the SRS data furnished by the Government, this decision is hardly surprising. I belong to the age group, between 36 and 55 years, which form 70 per cent of all SRS contributors.

In general, wage-earners in this age group would have a steady job and a steady income, with some cash to spare - after servicing their home mortgages and car loans.

After 10 years, I can attest to the considerable sum I reaped on the tax savings I enjoyed from the SRS contributions.

The incremental benefits add up. The total tax savings that I received over the past decade were sufficient for me to make the maximum SRS contribution of $11,475 for this year - and still have cash left over.

And unlike some SRS account holders who complain that they are lured into buying unsuitable insurance policies or financial products, I am glad to report that my experience has, so far, been a happy one.

In my 10 years of putting money into my SRS account, I have never once been pursued by an insurance agent or financial adviser on how to invest the funds.

Partly, this is because I know how I want to invest the money. That is surely the maxim which any investor should apply on all his investments, and not simply those related to SRS.

As I have no intention of making any premature withdrawal from my SRS account prior to retirement and attracting the 5 per cent penalty charge, I can afford to take a long-term view on selecting the investments. This has served me well.

My SRS account now has a couple of blue chips that were accumulated when they fell to attractive levels during the 2003 Sars crisis and the more recent global financial crisis two years ago.

I am also perfectly happy to keep the SRS contributions parked in cash in some years when I could not find any stocks worth my while to invest in.

Despite the market upheavals over the years, I have enjoyed an annual return of 12 per cent on my SRS investments. All in, my SRS account has outperformed the benchmark Straits Times Index in the past decade.

But unless I enjoy an extraordinary stroke of good luck in my investments, it is unlikely that I would ever hit the $400,000 tax-free savings ceiling limit for the SRS account by the time I retire.

I believe that this is an experience which most SRS savers are likely to share, since they keep their SRS monies in ultra-safe investments like blue chips, bonds and insurance products.

For us, the benefits in having an SRS account are obvious.

What is needed is for the scheme to be given a makeover like a catchy name change to attract more savers to its fold.

engyeow@sph.com.sg

Alternative Medicine - the debate

Dec 2, 2010

Stick to mainstream medicine till there's proof

MR RICHARD Seah's letter ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19) misses the point made by the writers whom he criticises (Dr Choo Su Pin and Dr Toh Han Chong, 'Don't make cancer harder than it is'; Nov 11).

Mr Seah targets the conclusions of the writers without dealing with their reasoning.

The crux of Dr Toh and Dr Choo's letter was that bioresonance therapy was not an 'alternative' treatment, but rather could actually be risky; patients were either overly frightened by the less than accurate diagnostics of bioresonance or worse, forsook conventional cancer treatment therapies for an unproven one, thereby giving up a potential cure.

Far from being dismissive and close-minded, they did acknowledge in their letter that 'there may be some treatments and supplements that may indeed be proven beneficial one day' but qualifed it by stating that 'these cannot be oversold beyond what is known about their true benefits'.

Dr Ang Peng Tiam's take on anti-cancer diets ('Food for thought'; Nov 18) should be taken in context. He was merely warning against giving up a regular diet in favour of other diets especially because chemotherapy requires adequate nutrition, and not arguing against alternative medicine.

The point these other writers were trying to make is this: Unless and until such alternative treatments are proven to be safe, effective and accurate, we should not choose them over conventional ones. Doing so could cause us either unnecessary worry or additional suffering that leads to premature death.

Tang Shangjun

Mainstream medicine isn't a cure-all...

I HAVE been a practising family doctor since 1994 and seen my fair share of chronic debilitating diseases and cancers causing much suffering and death over the years.

Often, I find myself helpless in preventing the onset of such illnesses or providing relief to my patients even with advanced Western medicine.

[Yes. Everybody dies. Not every illness can be prevented or cured. You are not god. Pain and suffering is part of life. Death is also part of life. If you are a doctor because you think you can save everyone, you will indeed feel helpless, and you will indeed find that even advanced medicine will not save all your patients. If you think you can save everyone, your medical training is sorely inadequate. If you think salvation is in alternative medicine, please switch and stop practicing western medicine.]

Our body has a remarkable capacity to heal itself, much more quickly than people realise, when we address the underlying causes of illnesses. And for many people, the choices they make each day and what they eat each day will determine their health in the long run.

[I have no disagreement with the above paragraph... within reason. But if the lungs were punctured, or one was acute appendicitis, please do not tell the patient to rest at home and let the body heal itself. I'm all for self-medicating, or the power of a good rest and yes, I think I should eat more healthily, and yes, my diet and life choices affects my health. But these are not arguments for alternative medicine.]

We should not begrudge those who prefer a vegetarian diet and seek alternative treatment. It is their choice and who are we to decide for them when we don't even know ourselves?

In short, we are all learning. I remember years ago when traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was not recognised by medical practitioners. But now, there is a TCM practice even in major hospitals.

[I seriously wonder about the efficacy of that.]

[April 2016 comment: If we agree that the human body has a remarkable ability to heal itself, then sometimes the best thing you can do is to let the body heal itself. It is more natural, less intrusive, and if the body fights off an illness, it gets stronger and immunity in the future. If so, the best thing doctors can do is generally to let the illness "run its course" - which is simply letting the body heal itself.

However, when people go to a doctor, they want a "cure". Or more correctly, they want relief. They want the pain and discomfort to go away. Here's the thing, a significant portion of the effect of medicine is "placebo" effect. And most of the medicine you get from your doctors provide symptomatic relief - pain-killers, fever suppression, nasal decongestant, etc. Only antibiotics are actually targeting the cause of your illness. 

Much of TCM medication or herbs are intended to work over the long term - strengthening one's immunity, and fighting off disease. However, most of TCM treatments have not been objectively proven as efficacious. But it doesn't matter.

If most illnesses can be allowed to "run its course" without undue harm to the patient or the general public, then it does not matter if the patient is treated by western medicine, TCM, or self-medicates/rest at home. 

Channelling patients to TCM relieves the hospital of demand for western doctors. Sure. you can read that to mean that TCM is recognised by medical practitioners.]

As doctors, we should keep an open mind as there is always more to learn.

Dr Benny Lim Jit Biaw

...No, but it's the be-all, unlike alternative healing

I REFER to the letter by Mr Richard Seah ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19).

Mr Seah's polemic against Dr Andy Ho's article ('Sending out the wrong signals'; Nov 6) completely misses the point and grossly oversimplifies the view of allopathic medicine on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Mr Seah's contention that Dr Ho and Dr Ang Peng Tiam ('Food for thought'; Nov 18) displayed 'rudeness and insensitivity' by dismissing CAM as pseudoscience fails to take into consideration the duties of the two medical men.

Medical professionals are accountable only to the health and well-being of the patient. 'Culture' and political correctness take a backseat when providing information concerning patient care. Mr Seah's implied assertion that doctors should permit CAM on grounds of sensitivity thus, holds no water.

[Good point.]

Doctors acknowledge that the patient has autonomy in matters of his health and is free to choose his choice of therapy. This does not preclude doctors from speaking out against quackery and 'snake oil' salesmen brazenly promoting a panacea that provides little benefit beyond a placebo effect. Doctors must provide necessary information verified by the scientific process for patients to make informed choices.

Mr Seah implied that CAM holds more value than allopathic medicine is wont to give. However, CAM is a body of unverified practices that have questionable outcomes and doubtful methodologies.

Homeopathy, for example, has long resisted the golden test of efficacy - the double blind trial. Mr Seah's argument that 'qi' and other pseudoscientific concepts in CAM are 'holistic' is a tired argument raised countless times. It is puzzling that the public demands drug trials and testing for drugs but yet does not demand the same rigour from CAM.

Certainly, not all aspects of CAM are worthless. Pharmaceuticals recognise the value of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) - for example Artemisinin, a first-line antimalarial derived from herbs. However, the fact that once CAM has been accepted by the scientific and medical community, it becomes 'mainstream' rather than 'alternative' seems to fly over CAM proponents' heads.

Singapore has come a long way in the field of science and it is precisely because of its 'advanced medical technology' that old practices that have little footing in science are abandoned.

Oon Ming Liang

Beware, be very aware of mumbo jumbo...

I AM writing in response to Mr Richard Seah's letter ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19).

While I agree with Mr Seah that there are indeed other traditional forms of medical practices that have been passed down through the generations in different cultures, one thing must be made clear: If these practices are not scientifically proven, they cannot be considered as treatments to be endorsed.

Mr Seah quoted bioresonance as an example in his letter, criticising mainstream doctors for dismissing this as mumbo jumbo. The fact of the matter is that it has been scientifically proven that it is no more effective than a placebo; that is, it would be equally effective as tap water.

There is no scientific basis for its efficacy; just your imagination. Yes, the mind is a wonderful tool and has been able to help heal the body, as shown by Professor V.S. Ramachandran in his research on the phantom limb; yet to attribute the mind's powerful healing effects to bioresonance, or some other mumbo jumbo, is irresponsible.

I am not saying that mainstream medicine is infallible. However, there is a reason why there are exacting standards to prove the efficacy of a treatment before it becomes adopted as mainstream. This is to protect unsuspecting citizenry from quack treatments, regardless of whether the doctor has published a book or not. If a treatment has not undergone peer review and trials, it cannot be considered responsible treatment.

Ian Dyason

...Sure, but doctors should try a dose of humility

I REFER to the letter by Mr Richard Seah ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19) and couldn't agree more with him.

I suffered from a chronic gastric condition for 20 years. I was treated by both general practitioners and specialists in both government and private clinics. I was put through all kinds of tests and prescribed many medicines... but these did not improve my condition.

A friend introduced me to bioresonance therapy last year and my health has since improved.

Instead of criticising and making negative comments about alternative medicine, why aren't these professionals in medicine humbling themselves to find out why people are not sticking to conventional treatments but seeking alternative ones instead?

Lim Swee Har (Ms)

[I'm glad BRT "worked" for you. But as Dr Benny Lim and Mr Ian Dyason noted, the the human body has great restorative powers, and the human mind too. Please consider the case cited by the oncologists - one a false diagnosis of gastric cancer by BRT, scaring the woman into expensive medical test and procedures only to prove that she has no cancer.

If someone told you that rubbing a magic stone over your abdomen everyday for 2 weeks would cure your gastric, and it really happened, would you believe that the stone was magic? Or would you want to see the magic stone heal other people?]

Nov 25, 2010

Alternative medicine unsafe? Not true

MAINSTREAM medical doctors routinely warn that complementary and alternative medicine can be dangerous, the latest instance being Monday's report about hypnotherapy ("When you wake, you will excel in school").

In that report, psychiatrist Brian Yeo warned that "hypnotherapists have the power to elicit information that the subject may not ordinarily want to reveal".

I believe hypnotherapists will attest that such an assertion is untrue. If indeed hypnotherapy has such powers, the police and security forces might as well use it to elicit confessions from suspected criminals and terrorists.

[In this case, I would say that Mr Seah has a point. The powers of hypnotherapy is overstated by Brian Yeo. I would not be surprised if he was misquoted by the reporters. But if he wasn't he really should be ashamed of himself for saying such stupid things.]

In reality, a person cannot be hypnotised against his will. One hypnotherapist explained to me: "If a person has no desire to stop smoking, I cannot use hypnotherapy to make him stop."

Dr Yeo also warned that "anything that has the power to do good also has the power to do the not-so-good".

This is a general statement that applies to anything and everything - including psychiatry.

An Internet search for "harm of psychiatry" will throw up many reports and medical studies about the damage done by psychiatric drugs and other forms of psychiatric treatment.

Ditto if you do a search for "harm of medicine". Studies of iatrogenic illnesses - caused by medical treatment - show that in medically advanced countries like the United States, medical care is the third leading cause of death.

By contrast, complementary and alternative medicine rarely cause harm. Insurance companies know this. They charge complementary and alternative medicine practitioners much lower premiums for professional indemnity insurance.

Richard Seah

[Partly it is because the proper authorities would not allow untrained, unscientific practitioners near deadly or potentially dangerous equipment, devices and ingredients. If I say my alternative medicine involves placing my hands on the patient's head and letting my qi flow into him to cure him, I probably won't need malpractice insurance. If my alternative medicine involves putting the patient in a tub of milk and applying an electric current through him, or if involves cutting open the patient in order to massage the pancreas to stimulate the flow of qi, the authorities will probably be down on me like a ton of bricks, and no insurance company should want to insure me.

So treatments like BRT where the equipment is no more dangerous than an ECG/EEG machine, insurance companies will be as glad to take your money as you are prepared to take the money of your gullible victims... I mean patients.]

The original article, and the letter from Cancer specialists that started the debate.

Nov 6, 2010

DAEDALUS
Sending out the wrong signals

By Andy Ho

SEVERAL non-physicians are offering 'bioresonance' as a cure-all for ills ranging from allergies and addictions to autism and cancers.

All for $150 to $300 for one to 1-1/2 hours at a device that looks like any oscilloscope you might find in a physics lab.

Recently, a Bedok general practitioner called Dr Erwin Kay was censured by the Singapore Medical Council for 'treating' patients with the device. He was fined $5,000 for professional misconduct.

But while bioresonance is not accepted as a method of medical treatment that trained physicians may use, it is perfectly legal for non-physicians to offer it.

In the United States, by contrast, the extravagant claims that these operators make for bioresonance may see them hauled off to court.

For instance, in October 2002, a bogus cancer cure guru, David L. Walker, had to settle with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which works to prevent consumers from being defrauded, had taken him to court for claiming that he could cure cancer with his bioresonance machine.

What practitioners like Mr Walker claim their 'remedy' can do is based on the unproven premise that cells in the human body have a natural vibration or resonance. Hence, bio-resonance. That is, they vibrate or resonate at 'healthy frequencies' whereas unhealthy cells supposedly do so at different frequencies.

It follows, therefore, that healthy frequencies should be applied to ill bodies to bring them into balance once again. Such rebalancing apparently would free unhealthy cells of unspecified toxins accumulated in the course of ill health.

What is needed, then, is a device that can detect these differences in frequencies, determine which organs are ill and then deliver opposite waves to 'cancel out' the unhealthy frequencies. This is where the bioresonance device comes in.

In use, the electrodes linked to the device are applied to the patient's skin to supposedly diagnose one's conditions. The electrodes send out electrical signals that perform their 'wave interference' work adroitly, thus leading to a rebalancing of frequencies.

The stated frequency range at which rebalancing occurs is said to vary greatly from 10 Hz to 150,000 Hz. Computerised data recording goes on even as the electrodes emit their healing frequencies.

Computer power is also used to analyse the data and interpret the results to give an indication of the patient's health.

Signal intensity is then varied according to these analyses, which may also direct the practitioner to focus the electrodes on a specific part of the anatomy where treatment is particularly needed. Of course, several sessions are needed to achieve re-balancing and healing.

There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to support this gobbledegook. The evidence that does exist utterly refutes its theory and practice.

In a randomised, double-blind trial involving children in Davos, Switzerland, who had an allergic skin condition called atopic dermatitis, bioresonance was found to have no curative effect at all.

In a separate trial, bioresonance electrodes were tested for accuracy in the diagnosis of allergies to house dust mites or cat dander. Their accuracy was compared to that of the standard skin-prick test used by dermatologists. There was absolutely no correlation between the two sets of results.

A similar trial published in the British Medical Journal in January 2001 also showed that the bioresonance machine failed to diagnose skin allergies.

Since these are not life-threatening conditions, perhaps the practice of bioresonance is quite harmless. Not so, however, when it is also claimed to cure cancer.

Though there have been no clinical trials to test this claim, it is based on completely erroneous science. Advocates argue that the bioresonance device can kill cancer cells by releasing tumour suppressor genes that have become 'suppressed'. Alternatively, or in addition, it is said to attenuate hyperactive oncogenes or genes that cause cancer.

Actually, cancer arises when mutations develop in these genes, not because they are suppressed or become hyperactive, respectively. Once mutations have developed in them, genes cannot be restored to their previously normal state.

The p53 gene helps to regulate when a particular type of cell will divide in two. It also leads defective cells to 'commit suicide'. But when p53 mutates, it can no longer do these things, so cancer develops.

But bioresonance advocates claim that p53 is 'suppressed', not mutated, in cancer cells. For this reason, it is argued, bioresonance can be used to reinvigorate p53, thus curing the cancer.

But genomics studies show p53 is mutated, not suppressed, in cancers.

In sum, bioresonance is junk science. Advocates may trot out testimonials from satisfied customers, but testimonials are not data. Its efficacy can be proven only with trustworthy data obtained from rigorous trials with blinded controls.

But since anyone may make and sell these devices - that is, the technology can no longer be patented since it is widely available - no one has any incentive to invest in such studies.

Be that as it may, unless and until such studies are done, one should stay away from this 'therapy'.

andyho@sph.com.sg

----------
Nov 11, 2010
Don't make cancer harder than it is

AS MEDICAL oncologists, we were heartened to read Dr Andy Ho's column last Saturday ('Sending out the wrong signals').

It is a daily struggle trying to convince some desperate cancer patients that they are unwittingly giving away their time and money to mumbo jumbo like bioresonance therapy.

Earlier this year, a woman was referred to our centre after she was told by her bioresonance therapist that she had Stage 2 gastric cancer detected by bioresonance. In the end, she did not have any cancer but ended up with a needless CT scan, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, blood tests and a lot of unnecessary anxiety.

More recently, another patient asked a colleague if she should go for bioresonance therapy at a popular bioresonance therapy centre. One cannot say that bioresonance therapy and similar unproven therapies are harmless, as they can lead to unnecessary investigations, wastage of money and resources, and worse, patients refusing conventionally proven therapy with evidence of real benefits.

We remember a patient with potentially curable lymphoma who refused curative chemotherapy and went on a strict diet based on its recommendation as anti-cancer therapy.

He was only 35 years old and almost died from renal failure and other electrolyte abnormalities caused by the diet before he eventually died from the lymphoma itself.

It is frustrating, especially when patients refuse conventional therapy which can potentially achieve good outcomes and even cures in favour of unproven alternative therapies.

It is easy to exploit vulnerable cancer patients, create fear and promise unsubstantiated hope. Cancer patients and their relatives may willingly pay for unproven therapies with little or no solid basis in science, common sense or evidence but solely based on hearsay, if there is even a glimmer of hope for their often terminal illness.

While most alternative treatments, like mangosteen juice and wheatgrass, have not shown anti-cancer effects in humans, others like chelation therapy, oxygen therapy, coffee enemas and various antioxidant therapies have been reported to cause dangerous effects in patients.

We respect that there may be some treatments and supplements that may indeed be proven beneficial one day, but these cannot be oversold beyond what is known about their true benefits.

It is our responsibility and that of the media to educate the public and point people in the right direction and away from baseless cancer-treatment claims.


Dr Choo Su Pin and
Dr Toh Han Chong
National Cancer Centre Singapore