[h=1]DON'T BE FOOLED BY THE SMALL CHANGES THAT THE PAP IS FINALLY MAKING NOW[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
25 Jul 2014 - 8:11pm
<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Like many of my peers, recent policy changes and reviews initiated by the PAP government will have a favourable impact on my life. The review of CPF interest rates will enhance retirement cash flows, while the removal of certain IPPT stations has save me from numerous wasted weekends as I am instantaneously propelled from being an “IPPT failure” to easily managing a silver.
At this point in time, many may be pleasantly surprised with the PAP for taking a more pragmatic approach to governance by considering the views of the electorate. However, more analysis will reveal that there are still numerous PAP-orientated structural problems despite such tokenism concessions, while welcoming political alternatives will be good for Singapore as a whole.
Foremost, one must see that the last time tweaks were made to these two practices were more than 15 and 32 years ago respectively despite much calls for action during in the interim. Are we expected to believe that the PAP has acted bona fide, or has this been coerced by a fear of losing political votes? Clearly, the PAP is acting out of necessity to quell public discontent.
In this regard, a report by the committee to strengthen NS concedes that such changes were to “remain relevant” while more than 40,000 NSmen have offered feedback, highlighting clear discontent and disconnect from a considerable segment of society. Even with some tweaks to the system, such efforts remain largely insufficient to mitigate the evils of other PAP policies.
Much has been discussed about Singaporeans losing out in the workplace to foreigners. Upon further scrutiny, we see that their GE2011 promises to reduce foreigner intake is only limited to PRs and E-pass holders. In fact, there has been a marked increase in the number of semi-skilled S-pass holders by more than 35% since GE2011. Such a skewed increase is evidently unhealthy for the economy.
At an entry-level pay scale, the typical S-pass holder is almost similar in costs to a polytechnic graduate but yet offers some work experience and perhaps better educational qualifications. As a result of this mass influx, many Singaporeans at the junior management level will find it increasingly hard to compete and rise with their utility (and therefore salary) peaking much faster as compared to the absence of this group as employers do not spend much on human capital development.
Such short-sightedness by the PAP has resulted in a continuous decline in Singaporean productivity levels. By contrast, immigration policies in elsewhere are mainly geared towards high-skilled workers have a positive impact on the domestic economy: A US study found that every 100 high-skilled workers brought in resulted in 484 jobs created for locals.
Most of the issues are not unfamiliar with Singaporeans as a similar line of policy failures and flawed thinking is applied. From public transport to housing and healthcare, we have seen conditions drastically drop because of the flaws of PAP’s incompetent and misguided leadership with GDP-growth as a key priority.
For example, frequent MRT breakdowns has led to revelations that track maintenance expenditure has remained constant over the past decade while their fare revenues and profits have been on a clear uptrend. What is worse is that with fare increases to supposedly mitigate the increase in maintenance costs after the fiasco, wealth is being transferred from average commuters to shareholders.
With the political scene playing out, we also see the benefits of getting more political diversity in parliament. Because of a question from WP MP Yen Jenn Jong in 2000, we know that there are in excess of 2000 scholarships given to foreigners costing taxpayers’ at least $36 million a year. It is thanks to this very backlash that we see promises to cut down the foreign student population from 18% to 15%.
As much as one might mistakenly start to think that the PAP has begun to give the illusion of starting to care, it should become clear that such measures to change are grossly inadequate after considering public anger from other quarters. The need for a powerful opposition to keep the PAP in check is clearer than ever as the next general election looms.
J Leow
TRS Contributor
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
25 Jul 2014 - 8:11pm
<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Like many of my peers, recent policy changes and reviews initiated by the PAP government will have a favourable impact on my life. The review of CPF interest rates will enhance retirement cash flows, while the removal of certain IPPT stations has save me from numerous wasted weekends as I am instantaneously propelled from being an “IPPT failure” to easily managing a silver.
At this point in time, many may be pleasantly surprised with the PAP for taking a more pragmatic approach to governance by considering the views of the electorate. However, more analysis will reveal that there are still numerous PAP-orientated structural problems despite such tokenism concessions, while welcoming political alternatives will be good for Singapore as a whole.
Foremost, one must see that the last time tweaks were made to these two practices were more than 15 and 32 years ago respectively despite much calls for action during in the interim. Are we expected to believe that the PAP has acted bona fide, or has this been coerced by a fear of losing political votes? Clearly, the PAP is acting out of necessity to quell public discontent.
In this regard, a report by the committee to strengthen NS concedes that such changes were to “remain relevant” while more than 40,000 NSmen have offered feedback, highlighting clear discontent and disconnect from a considerable segment of society. Even with some tweaks to the system, such efforts remain largely insufficient to mitigate the evils of other PAP policies.
Much has been discussed about Singaporeans losing out in the workplace to foreigners. Upon further scrutiny, we see that their GE2011 promises to reduce foreigner intake is only limited to PRs and E-pass holders. In fact, there has been a marked increase in the number of semi-skilled S-pass holders by more than 35% since GE2011. Such a skewed increase is evidently unhealthy for the economy.
At an entry-level pay scale, the typical S-pass holder is almost similar in costs to a polytechnic graduate but yet offers some work experience and perhaps better educational qualifications. As a result of this mass influx, many Singaporeans at the junior management level will find it increasingly hard to compete and rise with their utility (and therefore salary) peaking much faster as compared to the absence of this group as employers do not spend much on human capital development.
Such short-sightedness by the PAP has resulted in a continuous decline in Singaporean productivity levels. By contrast, immigration policies in elsewhere are mainly geared towards high-skilled workers have a positive impact on the domestic economy: A US study found that every 100 high-skilled workers brought in resulted in 484 jobs created for locals.
Most of the issues are not unfamiliar with Singaporeans as a similar line of policy failures and flawed thinking is applied. From public transport to housing and healthcare, we have seen conditions drastically drop because of the flaws of PAP’s incompetent and misguided leadership with GDP-growth as a key priority.
For example, frequent MRT breakdowns has led to revelations that track maintenance expenditure has remained constant over the past decade while their fare revenues and profits have been on a clear uptrend. What is worse is that with fare increases to supposedly mitigate the increase in maintenance costs after the fiasco, wealth is being transferred from average commuters to shareholders.
With the political scene playing out, we also see the benefits of getting more political diversity in parliament. Because of a question from WP MP Yen Jenn Jong in 2000, we know that there are in excess of 2000 scholarships given to foreigners costing taxpayers’ at least $36 million a year. It is thanks to this very backlash that we see promises to cut down the foreign student population from 18% to 15%.
As much as one might mistakenly start to think that the PAP has begun to give the illusion of starting to care, it should become clear that such measures to change are grossly inadequate after considering public anger from other quarters. The need for a powerful opposition to keep the PAP in check is clearer than ever as the next general election looms.
J Leow
TRS Contributor
