TR EMERITUS

The film “Parasite” that debuted in Korea a few years back; depicted a world where a chasm divides the rich, who live in airy minimalist splendor, and the poor, who exist — to a degree that becomes increasingly macabre. I think “Parasite” is a cruel mirror of the current social problems. It shows the "path" that a lot of people follow, frustrated by the difficulties to go ahead with dignity in their own lives. The reason so many people are reluctant to describe themselves as anything other than middle class because we're trained to think of the poor as "those people." *We* can't possibly be poor, because *we* work and earn money (however little it is). Poor people don't work; they spend all their time gaming the system. The thing is, it works the same way on the other end: we're trained to think of the rich that way, too. *We* can't possibly be rich, because *we* have to go to work to earn our money (however much it might be). Rich people don't work; they laze around their private pools all day and have servants catering to their every whim. As the so-called 'middle class' expands, a lot of us find ourselves adults in different classes than we were raised, and deeply uncomfortable with suddenly being one of what we've always thought of as "them." We may even refuse to admit, even to ourselves, that we are. Here's a definition of class most social scientists can live with: Upper Class= Rentiers, i.e. people who can choose to work, but don't have to. Middle Class= People who have to work, define themselves through their profession (I'm a doctor, a lawyer, a businessman etc.), and live comfortably and in relative economic security. Working Class= Wage workers, who don't necessarily define themselves through their profession, and don't have the means and security of the middle-class. Lower Class= Very low income workers, who weave in and out of poverty, and who are almost exclusively concerned with making ends meet. The move toward inequality seems to be found in all societies, once the top people (Upper class, rentiers, etc), start exercising their power and acquiring more of it. For example, in Han Dynasty China (BCE 206 - 220 CE), the nobility and large landowners began acquiring tax exempt status for their estates. In other words, they increasingly shoved the costs of maintaining the state onto the shoulders of poorer people, especially independent small landowners. Tax revenues declined and the Han government found itself without sufficient funds to defend the empire from the Hsiung Nu (or Hun) nomads, whose devastation of northern China was apparently far worse during the third century CE than it was 1,000 years later, with the Mongol conquest. A similar thing happened in late Heian Japan, around the eleventh and twelfth centuries CE. Huge landholdings owned by Buddhist monasteries were not taxed. The historical lesson seems to be that elites, no matter what their culture, values or economic base, will become more powerful and exclusive over time - and society will pay for their increasingly "free ride." Middle class native-born Singaporeans are getting squeezed out of their own city (but there are no suburbs to go to) -- HDB homes, selling between $500,000-$1,000,000), housing rents have apparently DOUBLED in the past year (you can apply for public housing but the waiting list is very long and you could wind up anywhere on the island), and they can't compete with cheap imported labor for jobs. The foreign born population is 40-50% and increasing rapidly, explicitly due to government policy--higher population growth means higher GDP growth and that's what the markets want. Many of the new entrants are South Asians or Mainland Chinese, who clash culturally with locals, and only speak mandarin (many native Singaporeans do not speak mandarin). Billionaires and foreign talents are welcomed in Singapore, even if the source of their funds/credentials is questionable. It's true that Singaporean students have high grades, this is exactly what they achieved... high grades, but no education. Our society has become based on unsustainable consumption, and become so obsessed with "social networks", and being connected at all times that in reality we have become disconnected. Too many of today's younger people - and I mean pretty much anyone under 50 - have no respect for and place little value on manual labor and traditional blue collar jobs, and have become so obsessed with "social networks"; being connected at all times that in reality we have become disconnected. There's no reason to believe that Singapore will be an exception. Immigration is our strength, not our weakness. Extractive policies (tax in particular, $80,000-$114,000 to buy a car), that favor existing wealth (established elites) over wealth creation (innovators and actual job creators) are the prime impediment to upward mobility. This kind of policy has plenty of historical precedent and is the primary cause for the decline of great civilizations. The book "Why Nations Fail" should be required reading for all voters and politicians. The real sad state of our economy is measured more by how truly miserable life is in the bottom fourth and fifth, not by how easy it is to slip in and out of it. With more economic equality we would have more mobility because the steps between the bottom and other quintiles would be smaller. I realize that this is a chicken and egg question, but it seems much more reasonable that our poor mobility is an artifact of our economic inequality than vice versa. While we pretend that our political system has no part in the growing inequality, the upwardly mobile Singaporeans is becoming a statistical oddity. It may be a very pleasant house, anything but 'home sweet home'.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

Let this set of statistics sink in and ask yourselves whether you agree with what has been done by the PAP to alter the composition of our Nation so drastically! In 1990, the percentage of immigrants who made up our country’s population was 24.14%. In 2020, only 30 years later, that percentage had changed to 43.14%, an increase of 19%! The relative change is 79%! Take a deep breath everyone! Hope you don’t fall off the chair!   Lim Tean      Read More →

Given current high inflation trends，this has to be the least needed, worst timed GST increase our policy makers could possibly make. First we have a structural fiscal surplus of around $30 bn ++ while the GST increase will raise $ 3bn ++ revenue; so this 2% GST increase is currently arithmetically completely unnecessary. Second, this structural surplus is growing strongly over the next decade because of our huge persistent balance of payments surpluses which are swelling our reserves and fiscal resources even further. This is the reason we had to set up GIC in the first place ! So what’s the point or hurry in raising GST, given we don’t even seem to be bold enough to come up with any decent social spending programs to use even a significant part of existing fiscal surpluses yet ? Third, the GST increase will unnecessarily exacerbate inflation and greatly increase hardship especially for the bottom 20% who are most hit by food and energy inflation. GST vouchers and subsidies are now being nullified by overall inflation. So why do policymakers insist on doing it ? Why not admit, as Keynes did, “ when the facts change I change my mind “? We need that kind of policy flexibility and humility to deal with these uncertain times. It’s not too late to change this extremely inappropriate policy. Instead, more urgent policy attention should be given to supporting the incomes of the bottom 20% working poor and elderly poor in a more sustainable way than one off handouts that kick the underlying cost of living poverty problem down the road. So why not do this as a start ? We really need to ask our policy makers these hard, serious questions !   Yeoh Lam Keong      Read More →