Feb 23, 2011
AS A champion of evidence-based medicine, Dr Andy Ho never fails to highlight little molehills of evidence that cast the slightest doubts on the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine such as acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and bioresonance ("Pinning down acupuncture: It's a placebo", Feb 12; "Indefensible ideas behind homeopathy", Jan 22; "Perils of chiropractic neck manipulation", Jan 21; "Sending out the wrong signals", Nov 6, 2010).
Yet he turns a blind eye to the huge mountains of scientific evidence that point to the harm and/or ineffectiveness of medical treatments and procedures, including:
- arthritis drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-depressants, anti-viral drugs for flu and other drugs;
- medical tests such as magnetic resonance imaging;
- chemotherapy;
- vaccination;
- unnecessary surgery; and
- dental amalgams that contain toxic mercury.
Iatrogenic disease - which refers to illness caused by medical treatment, including medical errors, infections picked up at hospitals and "acceptable" drug side effects - has become a serious problem. Some medical commentators have statistics to show that it is now the third-leading cause of death in medically advanced countries like the United States.
Dr Ho is also largely silent about the many scandals involving fraudulent medical research, data cover-ups, negative studies that go unreported when they fail to prove a drug's safety or effectiveness, and other unethical practices of the pharmaceutical industry, all of which cast serious doubt on the validity of the "evidence" that support drug-based medicine.
Richard Seah
[There is a difference between saying that western medical science has errors and scandals and saying that acupuncture in theory and practice is based on erroneous assumptions, and unsupported beliefs, and has no efficacy beyond that of a placebo effect.
Western medicine is not perfect. Drugs have side effects, precisely because it has effects. (Viagra's efficacy as an impotence cure was originally a side effect.) The difference is between having a falsifiable, testable hypothesis to gather evidence for one or another conclusion. Western medicine continues to test and retest hypotheses. Sometimes human failings short cut the process and drugs or treatment are approved when they should not. But there are remedies and channels to correct these mistakes.
There are no such peer review or scientific approach to alternative medicine. If such review exists there is no rigour to the review. Unlike western medicine which has competing opinions and testing of hypothesis, alternate medicine practitioners all have a vested interest in an autistic conspiracy to prove their practices' efficacy.
Studies published by China's TCM show only half a bell curve in terms of the efficacy of acupunture. The believer will say that this shows that acupuncture works because even the least effective treatment showed positive effect. The skeptic will suspect that the authorities only publish positive supportive studies.
You never hear of side effects or overdose by homeopathy. There are no reports of misapplication of acupuncture resulting in an inadvertent result or side effect. You never hear of a misapplied needle leading to some unintended side effect.
Either every acupuncturist is so well-trained and so experienced that there is no misdiagnosis, no misapplication of the needles, and no side effect, or very simply, nothing is happening.
Similarly, you can't overdose on homeopathy cos there's nothing there.]
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Salaries of Charities staff
Feb 19, 2011
Working for charity is about the heart, not the pay
I DON'T agree with Dr Keith Goh's letter on Monday ("If you pay peanuts, you get...."). In any commercial organisation where profit is the prime objective, if you pay peanuts, you get lousy chief executive officers (CEOs). In a charity organisation, the operating principle is not profit-orientated and you need only a CEO with passion to do the job, on a decent salary.
Working for charity is about the heart, not the pay
I DON'T agree with Dr Keith Goh's letter on Monday ("If you pay peanuts, you get...."). In any commercial organisation where profit is the prime objective, if you pay peanuts, you get lousy chief executive officers (CEOs). In a charity organisation, the operating principle is not profit-orientated and you need only a CEO with passion to do the job, on a decent salary.
[Define "decent". Is market rate "decent"? What if you don't have CEOs with passion? Would CEOs with professional pride do? "You need only a CEO with passion". So no need competence, ability, imagination, etc? ]
A well-run charity organisation delivers efficiently the donated dollar value to the intended beneficiary. Its reputation and good deeds will attract more donors. The CEO does not need charisma but rather diligence.
[And you want to reward the diligence with... gratitude instead of a reasonable compensation? Which is better a CEO with passion, heart, but limited competence willing to work cheap, or a CEO with competence, diligence, professionalism, and a good work ethic but who could work in any other sector, and make a good living to support his family and so require compensation commensurate with his experience and ability?]
Take, for example, the Thong Chai Charity Night held in March last year to raise funds for the 143-year-old Singapore Thong Chai Medical Institution. It raised $8.6 million, far exceeding the targeted amount of $3.5 million in a single event. The response was overwhelming and testified to the spirit and dedication of the organisation.
[Again, the criteria the unwashed public seems to use for determining charities' "success" seems to be their fund-raising capability. If so, NKF under Durai was the most successful charity ever. A charity's main objective should be to provide the help that it was set up to do first and foremost. Fund-raising is to resource that objective. But because fund-raising is so much easier to measure, so much easier to distill to a single figure, it becomes the sole measure of a charity's "success". ]
The free hospital sees more than 700 patients a day with only 51 employees at a total manpower cost of just below $1.26 million. I salute the leaders of this charity organisation for working in the true spirit of charity.
Giving to charity is a personal sacrifice from the heart for the needy and underprivileged in our community, and serving a charity organisation is to answer the noble calling to serve society.
[And if no one answers the call? In the first generation people work for free or cheap because of passion. But for sustained growth, you need to professionalise by the second or third generation of leaders. Harping on passion without understanding the complexities of running an organisation, let alone a charity is parochial, short-sighted, idealistic, and unrealistic. You want to do that, you need to establish your own religious order, and breed your own monks and nuns who would be willing to work for the sheer passion of it. But competence would be hit or miss. ]
I see no reason why charity organisations should pay big salaries to their CEOs when all volunteers work for free to conserve donated funds for intended beneficiaries. There is no place in charity organisations for high-fliers and ambitious managers. People who choose to work there should have the right mindset.
[And we'll forgive the wrong skillset because you're willing to work cheap. And that is why the social sector is struggling to improve.]
Paul Chan
Feb 19, 2011
Integrity, not money, must be the decisive incentive
I DISAGREE with Dr Keith Goh ("If you pay peanuts, you get..."; Monday) that it is all right to pay hefty salaries to leaders of charities.
If leaders are motivated solely by monetary benefits, they might as well work for a profit-driven organisation instead of for a charity whose sole object is to help the needy.
[Exactly. So most of the competent professionals are shunning the Charity sector, that's why the charities have been trying to attract competent people with more pay. But public reactions like this are going to frighten off potential leaders. If you impose such ridiculous burden on them - to work for free or cheap - they will think about their families, the scrutiny, the public disapproval, and say, "I don't need this" and go work for a bank.
Your unrealistic ideals are in the way of charities trying to improve their governance and capability. Your ideals are keeping them dumb and depriving the disadvantaged of good service.]
Recent cases where leaders of charities were brought to trial for their dishonesty highlight the need to have charity leaders with integrity. Those convicted of wrongdoing were no doubt talented, but were greedy and lacked integrity.
We must learn from these past experiences and not use money as an incentive to attract the wrong talent to run charities.
[So we'll depend on competent people with good hearts willing to work for free or for very little. Unfortunately Mother Teresa is dead, and while I think she has a good heart, and an inspirational leader, I have no idea about her ability as a CEO.
We don't need priests and nuns and monks. We need leaders. Competent leaders who know how to manage charities as viable organisations, not as well-meaning amateurs whose hearts are in the right place but everything else is in the wrong place.]
William Tay
Feb 19, 2011
Personal sacrifice required of charity CEOs
DR KEITH Goh's letter on Monday ("If you pay peanuts, you get...") re-ignites the debate as to whether charity honchos should be paid market rates on a par with chief executive officers (CEOs) of public-listed companies, or whether they should be recruited on the basis of their passion first and foremost.
Dr Goh described the various duties expected of a charity boss, certainly no less onerous than those of a public-listed company's CEO, but he overlooked one big difference.
A charity boss is not only expected to give of his best to the charity he serves, but also to do this at some personal sacrifice. His love for and dedication to the cause of the charity should be his primary motivation, not how much he will get in terms of salary. This is so, notwithstanding that he may have attributes befitting of a more lucrative position as a CEO in a public-listed company.
True, such a person is hard to come by. But so is any good company CEO. Nevertheless, they are there if the search is genuine and relentless.
We should not compromise faithfulness to a cause with opportunism or profit motivation.
Yap Swee Hoo
[All these writers think that Charities are suddenly deciding that what the hey, let's pay big bucks and get some high-flyer CEO just for the heck of it? Let's see, we need someone with integrity, passion, and competence. The Dalai Lama is not available (still fighting for Tibet's independence). The Pope... hmmm not exactly sure that he's cheap. Mother Teresa's dead. Gandhi too. Jesus Christ long dead (or resurrected according to some). Dammit! Messiahs, Saviours and Saints only come once every few hundred years and we have like 300 social service charities needing good leaders.
So sit around and search and search for a saint? Or work with what we've got, and realise that talent needs to be compensated (or they'll work elsewhere).
These writers should ask themselves. If their son or daughter graduated with high honours and distinctions and then decided to follow their passion and work in a charity for a token salary just enough to pay their living expenses would they worry for their child? If they had spent their savings to give their child the education they wanted and now depend on their child to support them in their old age, would their child's choice worry them? Of course it should not! Because since the child is in the charity sector, the parents will have priority admission to old age home, nursing home and other social services!]
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Improperty Tax
[After so many letters to ease up on property tax, here's one who's going after the big landed property owners.]
Feb 16, 2011
Make property tax more equitable
ACCORDING to Saturday's report ("Housing affordability of key concern"), the general sentiment is that the Government would be dishing out property, utility and service and conservancy rebates, upgrading old estates to increase the supply of HDB flats and providing larger housing grants for lower-income households in this year's Budget.
While these measures would be welcomed, they are just stop-gap measures and do not address the root of the problem: land scarcity in Singapore.
Land scarcity inevitably leads to high property prices as the supply of properties is insufficient to meet demand. Living in landed property is definitely a luxury and to ensure efficient and equitable allocation of resources, luxuries should be priced accordingly to reflect their scarcity. The current property tax policy in Singapore does not adhere to this principle of efficient allocation.
Currently, properties are taxed based on their annual value, which is the estimated amount of rental the properties would fetch if they were to be rented out. At first glance, one might be convinced that the landed property owner is paying a higher property tax and is thus paying a fair price for his luxury. However, the current tax rates fail to separate the concept of property from land.
Take, for example, a bungalow that sits on a 10,000 sq m plot of land could accommodate 40 three-room flats. Thus we can say that for the same size of land, HDB flat dwellers collectively pay a higher amount of tax than a landed property dweller.
Furthermore, the tax places a bigger financial burden on the lower-income group.
A property tax reform where the notions of land and property are separated is due. Property owners should still be taxed based on the estimated rental revenue, but at a lower rate. The balance should come from a land tax, where property owners are taxed based on the size of the plot they occupy and also the share of the plot which they occupy. Thus, the landed property owner would pay tax for the whole of his bungalow, while an HDB flat dweller living in a 20-storey block would pay 1/20 of the land tax. This new tax regime would be more equitable.
Goh Ching Soon
[Amazing how ingenious Singaporeans can be when it comes to shifting their tax burdens onto other people. Yeah, let's stick it to the land owners! We'll make him pay tax for imaginary, yet to be built flats.
Oh and you live in a 20 story flat? Haven't you heard? Duxton Plain is now 40 stories high. Oh but since we are going for imaginary, I think I can imagine a time when we will have 70 or even 100 storey flats. You are squatting on a scarce resource! You in your underdeveloped 20 storey only flat!
We should just put you and with the other property tax reformers in a steel cage and let you all sort it out.]
Feb 9, 2011
Why Iras should review formula for property tax
MR PAUL Chan ('Adopt fairer tax system for owner-occupiers'; Jan 23) is right in advocating a new and fairer formula for property tax.
The current method of tagging market value to rental value is grossly unfair to owner-occupiers, and my personal experience is a good example.
When we experienced the worst year of economic growth in 2009, the property tax went down by only 23.5 per cent from that in the preceding, pre-crisis year.
[That was the year there was a 40% property tax rebate. It was a once off.]
Yet the same tax shot up by a whopping 98 per cent last year, which meant the property tax paid in 2010 was 50 per cent higher than that in the 2008 pre-crisis year.
And the economy has not even recovered to pre-crisis levels.
There were also four adjustments made between 2007 and last year, three of which were increases and one, a decrease.
Is there a need for such frequent adjustments in tax rates?
All the above reinforces the view that when times are bad, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) returns less than it should, but when times are good, it takes back a lot more than it deserves.
The efforts by Iras to introduce adjustments and inform taxpayers could have been saved if a different formula is used.
As an owner-occupier, I do not lose or benefit from economic changes or changes in rental value, so why is my property tax not reflecting that?
Thian Tai Chew
[As an owner-occupier, you pay concessionary property tax. That is a recognition that you are not overtly gaining economically from the property. But your property is an asset and has economic value. If not to you, to others. A home in a more central area has a higher value. It means you have more amenities and conveniences. Someone living in a less central area has less conveniences and probably incurs more costs to enjoy the same conveniences and amenities.]
Feb 16, 2011
Make property tax more equitable
ACCORDING to Saturday's report ("Housing affordability of key concern"), the general sentiment is that the Government would be dishing out property, utility and service and conservancy rebates, upgrading old estates to increase the supply of HDB flats and providing larger housing grants for lower-income households in this year's Budget.
While these measures would be welcomed, they are just stop-gap measures and do not address the root of the problem: land scarcity in Singapore.
Land scarcity inevitably leads to high property prices as the supply of properties is insufficient to meet demand. Living in landed property is definitely a luxury and to ensure efficient and equitable allocation of resources, luxuries should be priced accordingly to reflect their scarcity. The current property tax policy in Singapore does not adhere to this principle of efficient allocation.
Currently, properties are taxed based on their annual value, which is the estimated amount of rental the properties would fetch if they were to be rented out. At first glance, one might be convinced that the landed property owner is paying a higher property tax and is thus paying a fair price for his luxury. However, the current tax rates fail to separate the concept of property from land.
Take, for example, a bungalow that sits on a 10,000 sq m plot of land could accommodate 40 three-room flats. Thus we can say that for the same size of land, HDB flat dwellers collectively pay a higher amount of tax than a landed property dweller.
Furthermore, the tax places a bigger financial burden on the lower-income group.
A property tax reform where the notions of land and property are separated is due. Property owners should still be taxed based on the estimated rental revenue, but at a lower rate. The balance should come from a land tax, where property owners are taxed based on the size of the plot they occupy and also the share of the plot which they occupy. Thus, the landed property owner would pay tax for the whole of his bungalow, while an HDB flat dweller living in a 20-storey block would pay 1/20 of the land tax. This new tax regime would be more equitable.
Goh Ching Soon
[Amazing how ingenious Singaporeans can be when it comes to shifting their tax burdens onto other people. Yeah, let's stick it to the land owners! We'll make him pay tax for imaginary, yet to be built flats.
Oh and you live in a 20 story flat? Haven't you heard? Duxton Plain is now 40 stories high. Oh but since we are going for imaginary, I think I can imagine a time when we will have 70 or even 100 storey flats. You are squatting on a scarce resource! You in your underdeveloped 20 storey only flat!
We should just put you and with the other property tax reformers in a steel cage and let you all sort it out.]
Feb 9, 2011
Why Iras should review formula for property tax
MR PAUL Chan ('Adopt fairer tax system for owner-occupiers'; Jan 23) is right in advocating a new and fairer formula for property tax.
The current method of tagging market value to rental value is grossly unfair to owner-occupiers, and my personal experience is a good example.
When we experienced the worst year of economic growth in 2009, the property tax went down by only 23.5 per cent from that in the preceding, pre-crisis year.
[That was the year there was a 40% property tax rebate. It was a once off.]
Yet the same tax shot up by a whopping 98 per cent last year, which meant the property tax paid in 2010 was 50 per cent higher than that in the 2008 pre-crisis year.
And the economy has not even recovered to pre-crisis levels.
There were also four adjustments made between 2007 and last year, three of which were increases and one, a decrease.
Is there a need for such frequent adjustments in tax rates?
All the above reinforces the view that when times are bad, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) returns less than it should, but when times are good, it takes back a lot more than it deserves.
The efforts by Iras to introduce adjustments and inform taxpayers could have been saved if a different formula is used.
As an owner-occupier, I do not lose or benefit from economic changes or changes in rental value, so why is my property tax not reflecting that?
Thian Tai Chew
[As an owner-occupier, you pay concessionary property tax. That is a recognition that you are not overtly gaining economically from the property. But your property is an asset and has economic value. If not to you, to others. A home in a more central area has a higher value. It means you have more amenities and conveniences. Someone living in a less central area has less conveniences and probably incurs more costs to enjoy the same conveniences and amenities.]
Monday, February 14, 2011
CHARITY LEADERS' SALARIES
Feb 14, 2011
If you pay peanuts, you get...
MR VICTOR Looi's letter ('Avoid paying big salaries to hire charity leaders'; last Friday) raises the issue of what really constitutes hefty pay.
Having served as a volunteer of local charity Make-A-Wish Singapore since its inception and board chairman since 2007, and being a past chairman of Make-A-Wish Foundation International, I have been involved in many discussions on this issue of CEO remuneration and benefits.
The argument that charity leaders should not be motivated by financial benefits is a lofty ideal, but is it realistic in today's society, and what is fair and reasonable compensation?
Let us look at the principal duties and responsibilities of a charity chief executive:
- Ensure that the charity mission is carried out well and meets the needs of its beneficiaries;
- Ensure the highest standards of governance within the organisation, so as to comply with the strict code of governance for charities;
- Initiate and implement fund-raising and financial stewardship programmes so that there are sufficient funds;
- Inspire and organise volunteers;
- Maintain relations with the community and media; and
- Manage office staff, oversee human resource policies and serve as a link between board members and office staff.
Such a multi-faceted and multi-tasking individual, with great many responsibilities, also needs to have the warm, engaging personality expected of a charity leader.
Such a person is not easily found, even in the highest echelons of for-profit organisations or multinational corporations.
A recent survey of CEO compensation for 2008-2009 by ASAE - The Centre for Association Leadership, an organisation representing more than 11,000 trade associations and voluntary organisations in 50 countries, indicated that for an organisation with an annual budget of US$1 million (S$1.3million) to US$2.5 million, the average annual salary for CEOs is between US$134,000 and US$154,000.
Is this applicable as a benchmark for Singapore? For a First World country, with a cost of living, gross domestic product and property prices among the highest in Asia, these figures are surely something for us to ponder.
Furthermore, if we apply the same argument that ministers, who give up lucrative careers in the private sector for the higher calling of serving the nation, should be fairly and reasonably compensated for their sacrifice, then we need to change our mindset about the salaries of our charity leaders.
As the oft-repeated saying goes: 'If you pay peanuts, you get...'
Dr Keith Goh
Online comments
Online comments
Paying peanuts you get monkeys do carry some weight however, what assurances has the public got (don't forget the NKF Saga), despite all the governance in place the CEO still manages to get away for some time?If $$$$$ issue is a key factor, I would appeal the "gorillas" to stay out of it as to be involved in charity starts off with CHARITY above everything else.
Posted by: yklim008 at Mon Feb 14 15:05:01 SGT 2011
i don't ask for a lot when i know i'm performing charity, just a token, and even that may seem like a lot to the poor. it's my way of giving back. but i have little sympathy shall we say, when i'm dealing with someone who can afford to pay. they don't need my charity. they're looking for an experience and i deliver just that.
Posted by: unewolke at Mon Feb 14 14:14:27 SGT 2011
Posted by: yklim008 at Mon Feb 14 15:05:01 SGT 2011
i don't ask for a lot when i know i'm performing charity, just a token, and even that may seem like a lot to the poor. it's my way of giving back. but i have little sympathy shall we say, when i'm dealing with someone who can afford to pay. they don't need my charity. they're looking for an experience and i deliver just that.
Posted by: unewolke at Mon Feb 14 14:14:27 SGT 2011
i see that people are motivated by money/greed, some more so than others. that is fine, but don't work in a charity if you don't want to give more than take. i've been on both sides - earning a little or a lot based on the same skill sets.
Posted by: unewolke at Mon Feb 14 14:13:37 SGT 2011
[Social workers also have family commitments and bills to pay. They may have the aptitude to work with disadvantaged people, but they also need to be properly compensated for their time and their education. The problem is that most people seem to think that Charity work is volunteer work. Yes. There are volunteers, but when the problem is dealing with family issues, financial problems, gambling, drinking, addiction, unemployment, discipline, delinquency, parenting and other complex socio-psychological issues, volunteers are out of their depth. You need social workers trained and resourced to help these individuals and their families with their specific problems.
And these social workers need to be paid adequately.
And the administrators and executives who help and support these social workers may have good intentions, but they also bills to pay and a family to feed. Helping the poor does not mean they have to be as poor as the people they help.
If we continue to pay them pittance, they we attract the low talent, no-talent, and failures. They have limited competence and they cannot make the charity strong and viable. And the charity fails. Look at the social work charities. Most of them are poorly run. Many are living from hand to mouth, disaster and failure just one donation away. And social workers are making sacrifices in terms of salaries. They can continue for some time, but eventually, they will burn out, or decide that they need to look after themselves and they leave the sector taking with them a wealth of experience. And the social sector is poorer for the loss of these experienced social workers.]
Posted by: unewolke at Mon Feb 14 14:13:37 SGT 2011
[Social workers also have family commitments and bills to pay. They may have the aptitude to work with disadvantaged people, but they also need to be properly compensated for their time and their education. The problem is that most people seem to think that Charity work is volunteer work. Yes. There are volunteers, but when the problem is dealing with family issues, financial problems, gambling, drinking, addiction, unemployment, discipline, delinquency, parenting and other complex socio-psychological issues, volunteers are out of their depth. You need social workers trained and resourced to help these individuals and their families with their specific problems.
And these social workers need to be paid adequately.
And the administrators and executives who help and support these social workers may have good intentions, but they also bills to pay and a family to feed. Helping the poor does not mean they have to be as poor as the people they help.
If we continue to pay them pittance, they we attract the low talent, no-talent, and failures. They have limited competence and they cannot make the charity strong and viable. And the charity fails. Look at the social work charities. Most of them are poorly run. Many are living from hand to mouth, disaster and failure just one donation away. And social workers are making sacrifices in terms of salaries. They can continue for some time, but eventually, they will burn out, or decide that they need to look after themselves and they leave the sector taking with them a wealth of experience. And the social sector is poorer for the loss of these experienced social workers.]
Monday, February 7, 2011
What it is like to be a mum in Finland
Feb 7, 2011
I AM a Singaporean mother who is currently on maternity leave in Finland ('Encourage gender equality and the babies will come'; Jan 22). I was holding a job there - technically, I still do - when my child came along.
A month before my expected delivery date, I started my maternity leave. For the next eight months, I would receive up to 80 per cent of my salary with two full months paid for by the company and the rest covered by the state.
After that, should I choose to stay at home with my baby in his formative years, my position in the company would be held for up to three years. A child allowance of €200 (S$350) is also paid monthly until the child grows well into his teens.
Family-friendly benefits are by no means restricted to mothers. Fathers are given up to three weeks of paternity leave. And because they are expected to chip in with child rearing, a certain portion of benefits can be shared by the father if he stays at home while the mother returns to work.
Benefits in Finland are classed as maternity and parental allowances to reflect the equally important role of fathers in bringing up a child.
Singapore has come a long way to join the First World club but like its counterparts, it is also afflicted with the bane of falling birth rates. Singapore's policymakers must weigh the pro-business policies that keep the cost of labour low and make Singapore competitive, against the cost of creating an environment where the burden of having a baby does not fall squarely on the mother's shoulder.
A paradigm shift in people's mindset is also needed so that women are not discriminated against in the workplace and men play a bigger role in parenting.
Ashley Chang (Ms)
[Benefits have to be paid for in some way. There is no mention of taxes in Finland. The tax is 6.5% to 30%, with municipal tax of 15% - 20%. Corporate tax is another 26%.
In contrast, Singapore taxes are 3.5% to 20% personal income tax, with 7% GST, and 17% corporate tax.
The paradigm shift may well need a tax system shift.]
I AM a Singaporean mother who is currently on maternity leave in Finland ('Encourage gender equality and the babies will come'; Jan 22). I was holding a job there - technically, I still do - when my child came along.
A month before my expected delivery date, I started my maternity leave. For the next eight months, I would receive up to 80 per cent of my salary with two full months paid for by the company and the rest covered by the state.
After that, should I choose to stay at home with my baby in his formative years, my position in the company would be held for up to three years. A child allowance of €200 (S$350) is also paid monthly until the child grows well into his teens.
Family-friendly benefits are by no means restricted to mothers. Fathers are given up to three weeks of paternity leave. And because they are expected to chip in with child rearing, a certain portion of benefits can be shared by the father if he stays at home while the mother returns to work.
Benefits in Finland are classed as maternity and parental allowances to reflect the equally important role of fathers in bringing up a child.
Singapore has come a long way to join the First World club but like its counterparts, it is also afflicted with the bane of falling birth rates. Singapore's policymakers must weigh the pro-business policies that keep the cost of labour low and make Singapore competitive, against the cost of creating an environment where the burden of having a baby does not fall squarely on the mother's shoulder.
A paradigm shift in people's mindset is also needed so that women are not discriminated against in the workplace and men play a bigger role in parenting.
Ashley Chang (Ms)
[Benefits have to be paid for in some way. There is no mention of taxes in Finland. The tax is 6.5% to 30%, with municipal tax of 15% - 20%. Corporate tax is another 26%.
In contrast, Singapore taxes are 3.5% to 20% personal income tax, with 7% GST, and 17% corporate tax.
The paradigm shift may well need a tax system shift.]
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The day it was raining money at Sentosa...
Feb 7, 2011
MY FAMILY and I were at the Universal Studios at Sentosa around midday last Friday. I was waiting underneath the roller coaster Battlestar Galactica which my overjoyed children were riding as it intermittently opened to the public for test runs.
Imagine my surprise when it suddenly started raining money - mostly Malaysian ringgit. Imagine my greater surprise when the crowd of people around me did not make a rush for it. Instead of filling their pockets and walking away congratulating themselves on their good fortune, strangers belonging to various races and nationalities organised themselves to pick up the money which was lying on the ground.
They found a wallet bulging with cash, a RM1,000 clip of 20 RM50 notes as well as an assortment of other notes - altogether not an insignificant sum. They then located a staff member and handed over the money and wallet to him.
A few minutes later, a family of six tourists emerged from the exit. They were distraught, fully expecting the money to be lost. The mother could be heard loudly berating her son for being so stupid as to drop the family's money packet.
But the family was in for a pleasant surprise. Without any fuss, the staff member approached them, confirmed their identity using the identity card found in the wallet and returned the money.
It was a wonderful display of honesty, integrity and decency by a group of ordinary Singaporeans and visitors that day.
Andrew Ong
[Thank you, Andrew Ong for sharing this.]
MY FAMILY and I were at the Universal Studios at Sentosa around midday last Friday. I was waiting underneath the roller coaster Battlestar Galactica which my overjoyed children were riding as it intermittently opened to the public for test runs.
Imagine my surprise when it suddenly started raining money - mostly Malaysian ringgit. Imagine my greater surprise when the crowd of people around me did not make a rush for it. Instead of filling their pockets and walking away congratulating themselves on their good fortune, strangers belonging to various races and nationalities organised themselves to pick up the money which was lying on the ground.
They found a wallet bulging with cash, a RM1,000 clip of 20 RM50 notes as well as an assortment of other notes - altogether not an insignificant sum. They then located a staff member and handed over the money and wallet to him.
A few minutes later, a family of six tourists emerged from the exit. They were distraught, fully expecting the money to be lost. The mother could be heard loudly berating her son for being so stupid as to drop the family's money packet.
But the family was in for a pleasant surprise. Without any fuss, the staff member approached them, confirmed their identity using the identity card found in the wallet and returned the money.
It was a wonderful display of honesty, integrity and decency by a group of ordinary Singaporeans and visitors that day.
Andrew Ong
[Thank you, Andrew Ong for sharing this.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)