• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Ho Kwon Ping’s Self-Serving Proposals Have No Merit

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Source: Rethinking The Ricebowl Blog

Ho Kwon Ping’s Self-Serving Proposals Have No Merit.
Nov 15 Posted by kjeyaretnam

ho-kwon-ping2.jpeg


Yesterday I wrote about why the general Singaporean public paying for foreign workers’ medical care was a bad idea. If companies are allowed to get away without providing adequate medical coverage for their foreign workers this would effectively be a subsidy to those employers to employ foreign workers rather than Singaporeans.

Today I read about the proposals from the Executive Chairman of Banyan Tree, a luxury hotels and resorts group, Ho Kwon Ping.

Who is Ho Kwon Ping?

Mr Ho was detained in the 1970s for writing critical articles about the PAP Government. During his imprisonment, according to an interview he gave to the BBC, he had a conversion realising that he wasn’t Nelson Mandela. Purely coincidentally he became very rich but after assuming the leadership of the family business and purely coincidentally he has become a vocal supporter of the PAP.

What is his proposal?

Ho advocates converting the foreign workers’ levy into a deferred savings account akin to CPF, which the foreign worker would be able to withdraw when he left Singapore.

What is the Foreign Worker’s Levy?

This is a sum paid to the government by the employer. At the moment the foreign worker levy acts as a tax on the use of foreign labour. It should make foreign workers more expensive to employ and thus encourage employers to substitute Singaporeans.

Isn’t that a good thing?

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out repeatedly, if the supply of foreign labour is inelastic ( which means that even if their salaries are cut the amount of labour supplied does not fall by very much ) the levy could act merely to drive down wages for foreign workers while the gross cost to the employer (wage plus levy) remains unchanged. In this case the government is benefitting from the levy but the foreign workers are worse off. Most importantly Singaporeans are even worse off as no new jobs have been created for Singaporeans.

tax-incidence-28mixed-29-svg.png


So the Foreign workers levy doesn’t help Singaporeans and is ineffective.

So isn’t Ho’s proposal an improvement?
Ho’s proposal is to convert the levy into a deferred savings account for the foreign workers. The same problems apply.

  • Employers can theoretically reduce their foreign workers’ direct pay by up to the full amount of the deferred savings because these workers will be able to access their savings when they return to their home country.
  • Given foreign workers’ weak bargaining power it is likely that employers will be able to cut their direct pay substantially.
  • Ho’s proposal thus amounts effectively to a removal of the tax on foreign labour.
  • Employers are likely to respond by employing MORE foreign labour and cutting back on their usage of Singaporeans as far as they are able.
Why is that self -serving?

While the number of Mr Ho’s employees in Singapore appears to be small, he speaks clearly with the economic interests of employers in mind and not Singaporean workers or even foreign workers.

What’s your solution?

  • A better solution would be to have a minimum wage that was mandatory for all workers, both local and foreign.
  • This would remove the ability of employers to drive down foreign workers’ wages to the detriment of Singaporeans competing with them for jobs.
  • The levy could then be converted into a CPF account for foreign workers or retained as a tax on foreign labour.
My preference would be to have a cap on the overall number of foreign workers and then auction the entitlements to the highest bidders. This would ensure that foreign workers were allocated to where they would be most productive while controlling the overall levels. The cap could be adjusted up and down to keep wage growth in line with productivity growth.

Unfortunately judging by the comments on my Facebook page many employers are unhappy that the Government is not subsidising them more to take on foreign workers and making it easier for them to employ foreigners. This will always be so as far as employers are concerned. Labour can never be cheap enough. Slave owners in the American South worried that if slavery was abolished labour would become too expensive to allow them to profitably grow cotton and other crops.

Lets hope that Singaporeans are not too naïve to see through the arguments of special interest groups that appear to have altruistic motives but are actually trying to gain a commercial advantage.


End Of Article

 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
He should be suggesting how we Sinkies can hve our CPF ret to us at 55.

CPF is returned at 55. I withdrew almost half a million dollars from my CPF account at that age. It was a simple procedure and the money was transferred promptly to the specified account.

I would like the thank the CPF board for their efficiency.
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
CPF is returned at 55. I withdrew almost half a million dollars from my CPF account at that age. It was a simple procedure and the money was transferred promptly to the specified account.

I would like the thank the CPF board for their efficiency.

May I know when did this joyous event occur? Was it before the implementation of the minimum sum?

Follow up questions would be ... ... ...
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
May I know when did this joyous event occur? Was it before the implementation of the minimum sum?

Follow up questions would be ... ... ...

No it was after the implementation of the minimum sum but this does not change things at all. It is always good to diversify one's portfolio and leaving a small amount in CPF is a prudent thing to do anyway. It's still my money. It just being held in a separate account.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
I enjoy reading kj's writings and it appears he may be right about the negligible impact of FW demand while reducing a lucrative source of taxation from the state. Best solution still seems to be minimum wage which mandates a wage increase in the low end and maintains fairness, but it may mean marginally profitable businesses will close down and less jobs overall in the economy.

Shame on all those money grubbing civil servants toying with people's lives like that. This would not have happened if the Lees do not have such a large influence in the state of affairs.
 

shittypore

Alfrescian
Loyal
No it was after the implementation of the minimum sum but this does not change things at all. It is always good to diversify one's portfolio and leaving a small amount in CPF is a prudent thing to do anyway. It's still my money. It just being held in a separate account.

Goof for you but i rather put it in my own pocket. Those scums tink they re the only ones who noes how to use money, huh!
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
In short HKP addresses the warm bodies approach to business where green foreign recruits are brought in to sg to be trained. That resulted in low productivity, domestic workforce displacement and wage suppression issues we face today. His proposal is a solution to low productivity, but offers little or no impact to local workers marginalized by free movement of labour and age discrimination.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Goof for you but i rather put it in my own pocket. Those scums tink they re the only ones who noes how to use money, huh!

Of course it would be best if I could have direct control of the minimum sum and how it is invested but it is a small price to pay to ensure that vulnerable members of Singapore society are protected from financial ruin.

We should not be selfish when it comes to government policies and concern ourselves only with our own matters to the detriment of others. We must consider society as a whole.
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
No it was after the implementation of the minimum sum ...............

Assuming the minimum sum was SGD 100K then and you said you withdrew SGD 500K. Which means your ordinary account had SGD 600K when you reached 55. How many Singaporean workers are in that position? I mean both numerically and percentage wise.

It is always good to diversify one's portfolio and leaving a small amount in CPF is a prudent thing to do anyway.

When the returns for a mutual fund are only 2.5% per annum with no upside and the rate of inflation is higher than that and had and most likely will remain so for a long time to come, it is neither good nor prudent to put a signficant part of your nest egg in that mutual fund.

It should be MY choice as to whether I want to diversify and if so how I want to do it. I also would not even consider putting 0.001% of my investible money with a fund manager who had lost USD 30 billion making silly and poorly timed bets on banks in the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression and is still around to manage that fund. I will look elsewhere like say US Treasury Bills.

It's still my money. It just being held in a separate account.

That account has so many rules and those rules keep changing without even consulting me that I fail to see how it could be considered my money.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Assuming the minimum sum was SGD 100K then and you said you withdrew SGD 500K. Which means your ordinary account had SGD 600K when you reached 55. How many Singaporean workers are in that position? I mean both numerically and percentage wise.

I still have about $400,000 in my ordinary account. I am just an average Singaporean. I'm certainly not very wealthy. I have been careful with my finances though and have therefore been able to build up a nest egg because I have not indulged or squandered what I have.

Those who have not been able to save a measly $160,000 dollars in their CPF after 3 decades or more of work are exactly the ones that need to be looked after. It shows how poor they are at generating wealth and investing.

I am aware that the CPF minimum sum is not a perfect policy but it is effective in ensuring that the vast majority of Singaporeans have a steady income in their old age.
 

shittypore

Alfrescian
Loyal
Of course it would be best if I could have direct control of the minimum sum and how it is invested but it is a small price to pay to ensure that vulnerable members of Singapore society are protected from financial ruin.

We should not be selfish when it comes to government policies and concern ourselves only with our own matters to the detriment of others. We must consider society as a whole.

You must have just taken few puff, huh!
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I still have about $400,000 in my ordinary account. I am just an average Singaporean. I'm certainly not very wealthy. I have been careful with my finances though and have therefore been able to build up a nest egg because I have not indulged or squandered what I have.

Very funny arh. 100K minimum sum + 500K withdrawn so far + 400K voluntarily remain inside CPF = SGD 1 million not including other assets (like house in New Zealand). That's not super rich but is not "average" either.


Those who have not been able to save a measly $160,000 dollars in their CPF after 3 decades or more of work are exactly the ones that need to be looked after. It shows how poor they are at generating wealth and investing.

I did some back calculations and for A to have SGD 160K after 3 decades of work implies his average monthly salary over that period is SGD 683. Assumptions are 13 months pay, 30% of gross goes into ordinary account, employer contributes same amount. If A is earning only SGD 683 per month, then he is probably in the lower percentiles and after having worked for 3 decades and forced to save SGD 160K, it is fine to withhold this sum from him when he retires at 55? Mmm ...... very interesting.

A is poor at generating wealth and investing because his monthly income does not allow for anything else after compulsory CPF savings and living expenses!

I am aware that the CPF minimum sum is not a perfect policy but it is effective in ensuring that the vast majority of Singaporeans have a steady income in their old age.

My dad always said that whilst perfection is not attainable, it is no excuse for not striving for excellence. For me I prefer to invest my retirement nest egg MY WAY because it's MY money. Suggesting alternatives for the less educated is hard work and I don't intend to do it since I have already "quitted" or UPGRADED to elsewhere.

Talking about ex-hedge fund managers like KJ is that George Soros I see in the audience? Anyway, this thread is about HKP's suggestion and not CPF.

[video=youtube;d1yfX6VnrSU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1yfX6VnrSU[/video]
 
Last edited:

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
A is poor at generating wealth and investing because his monthly income does not allow for anything else after compulsory CPF savings and living expenses!

Anyone who is earning such a low salary certainly needs looking after. Handing over $160,000 at 55 would be disastrous. Thank goodness for the minimum sum scheme.
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
You all should ask Ho Kwon Tjan, the super chain smoker who lives in Bangkok what he thinks of his elder bro Kwon Ping's idea...:rolleyes:
 

Tuayapeh

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Ho Kwon Ping is a sellout hedging his bets.......


In truth he's nothing but another Leegime fatcat.........
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
or maybe u should ask Mr Ho Kwon Ping on the sale of Banyan tree villas to President Nathan son in law...:rolleyes:
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
Former Natsteel chief Gan Kim Yong now Minister of Health....ask him how close they are to Ho Kwon Ping leh? :rolleyes:
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
Gentleman....it is all a circus. Do not believe in what you read...whahahahahaha :biggrin:
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
or ask Claire Chiang why she doesnt want to be a golf 'widow' and dislike Kwon Ping from playing golf lah...:biggrin:
 
Top