SINGAPORE: To the casual observer, Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC, Seah Kian Peng looks like an archetypal party man.
He joined politics in 2006 as a People’s Action Party candidate and his placid, good-natured demeanour could lead one to think that he routinely toes the party line.
However, upon closer scrutiny, one would realise that he has no qualms about speaking up against policies and urging the Government to effect more meaningful change.
More recently, Mr Seah’s speech in Parliament last month asking the Government to consider factors beyond economics when designing policy certainly caught the attention of many Singaporeans.
While acknowledging that the economic reasoning that the Government has applied to public policies has “stood us in good stead”, he emphasised the need “to make more room for the lexicon of morality, duty, relationships and trust”.
As an example to illustrate his point, he cited a controversial decision by the Ministry of Education to ensure that teachers pay for parking at school premises.
Teachers, he pointed out, pay for Children’s Day treats, and surprises for children, “all these things which cost them no small amount of money and yet whose value transcends price”, so why should the authorities be calculative when it comes to the parking issue.
As he sits before me, he emphasises that he is against thinking about any policy, not just this one, through purely an “economic lens”.
But when I ask him which other policies he thinks need to be looked at differently today and going forward, he seems to be at a loss.
“I must admit that right now, I can’t think of any immediately.”
But his track record proves his sentiment is genuine to some extent.
“WHY ARE WE DOING ALL THESE THINGS? WHO ARE WE DOING IT FOR?”
For instance, he spent years fighting for paternity leave so that fathers could be more involved in parenting, even if it involved the Government having to fund such leave.
“I became an MP in 2006. At that point there was no paternity leave at all. I remember raising it in six Committee of Supply debates. This was under the purview of the Ministry of Manpower. Each time, they said they were not ready yet and they needed to balance it out with employers’ concerns.”
Eventually, his call was heeded and paternity leave was gradually introduced. Today, fathers are granted two weeks of paid paternity leave funded by the Government.
In addition, working fathers can share up to four weeks of their wives’ 16 weeks of government-paid maternity leave.
"I think fathers have an important role to play and if it means we must spend money to help them play a more active role, we should."
On this issue, he acknowledges there are still problems as studies show that in spite of being entitled to such leave, fathers are wary of taking time off due to anxiety that their employers will not take kindly to them being absent from work.
“I guess the practical day-to-day challenges overwhelm most of us. So, the need for all of us to step back and ask ourselves, why are we doing all these things? Who are we doing it for?”
On this, he feels the Government, being the largest employer in Singapore, can "take a greater lead and set an example for other companies".
He reiterates that even what Singapore has today took many years to achieve.
I ask if he ever feels frustrated when the Government is slow to act.
“Many big things start small and if one has strong convictions, we should not let up. I certainly believe there are enough MPs with differing viewpoints and who are prepared to give their ideas and suggestions to ministers for their consideration.
“At the same time, I must admit it is also easier to be an MP and make speeches than to be a minister and actually make real changes and to face the consequences for good or for bad. But I have the resolve and attitude of wanting to try and not to live a life of regrets.”
Over the years, he has also spoken up for more assistance for unmarried single mothers.
In 2016, the Ministry for Social and Family Development finally announced that the Government is ready to extend the full 16-week maternity leave accorded to married mothers, to single mothers as well.
Their children also now have access to a Child Development Account, a savings scheme to help pay for childcare and healthcare costs.
MPs and women’s rights groups spent years campaigning for this and other benefits.
Mr Seah feels even more can be done to address their needs.
Unmarried mothers still do not get the Baby Bonus cash gift and parenthood tax rebates that even widows and divorcees, receive. When it comes to housing, they have to wait until they turn 35 to buy an HDB flat under the singles scheme.
“The challenges of raising children by themselves is already hard enough. But they have to still think about something as basic as housing. So on our part as a Government, how can we help?”
The Government has traditionally been cautious about equalising benefits for this group as it says doing so could send out the wrong signals. A common argument is that such a move might be seen as condoning having children out of wedlock.
“Frankly, I don’t believe in this. But even if as a result, one or two people start thinking along those lines, so be it. We shouldn’t stop ourselves from helping people just because we fear a small group could end up abusing a policy.”
This concept should apply to every policy, he says, including to how much help should be given to the low-income in society and how even means-testing to assess a person’s eligibility for assistance is conducted.
I put it to him that some have described means-testing as being overly intrusive, to the point that it discourages even the genuinely needy from seeking help.
Then there are others who claim that it is not granular enough.
“I have people telling me that just because a person lives in a three-room flat, it doesn’t mean they are poor. They can actually be very wealthy and we should scrutinise more to make sure we don’t give them rebates. It is always difficult in policy-making and it’s about striking the right balance. You also do not want to spend an inordinate amount of resources or time to administer some of these schemes. Of course, we need to make exceptions when the general proxies like housing and income are proven to be inaccurate in particular cases.”
He urges social service agencies to take a more “human” approach to those who are truly in need.
“We should not formulate policies just to make sure that one person doesn't break the system. You end up inconveniencing the 99.9 per cent of us who are not intending to break it. Put yourself in the beneficiary or the applicants’ shoes. For many, it’s not easy to ask for help.”
HIGHER TAXES ON THE RICH
As we continue talking, he acknowledges that while he wants even greater social spending on various groups in Singapore in order to narrow inequality and increase social mobility, it’s going to cost. The economic aspect cannot be divorced from the equation entirely.
“We need to look out for the lower-income group to the extent of being deliberate in giving more help. I’m all for more progressive taxes on the top income earners. Those who have made it really ought to find ways to help others because they start life and their children start life already disadvantaged. We need to help them move up in terms of social mobility. We shouldn’t be shy about it,” he says.
For example, over the years, he has suggested the Government reconsider how scholarships are awarded. The rich should get “nominal” ones which recognise their results but come with no money. The money should be awarded instead to other deserving students from less privileged backgrounds.
He has also suggested households that own more than one car pay markedly higher additional taxes on their second and subsequent vehicles.
However, when I ask whether he thinks capital gains and wealth taxes should be introduced, he hesitates.
“The rich can afford to pay higher taxes but also, you cannot make the poor, rich by making the rich, poor. So I’m not sure about that. But I believe that in terms of luxury taxes and even income tax, more can be done.”
He thinks we should “get away from overly comparing ourselves with Hong Kong” where the tax rates are generally lower.
“Once we are fixated with that, it means the ability for us to adjust some of the taxes is very limited. We need to be competitive and we should. But as with all things, we need to look at issues holistically. There are many factors that investors would take into account - tax rates are just one such factor. But on many other factors - environmental, social, security, infrastructure, many of my friends tell me Singapore compares very favourably against Hong Kong."
When it comes to specifics though, I'm sceptical about how bold he really is, so I ask him which countries Singapore should compare itself against instead and how much he thinks income tax on the highest income earners should increase by.
On this, he is non-committal.
“The Minister for Finance will be better-placed to pin the right numbers. The key is that for corporate tax, I think there is room for it to be adjusted upwards and the same for personal income tax for the top earners.
“I do pay quite a lot of taxes myself but I think it’s something we must be willing to do. When you have more, you should give more.”
Over the years, among other things, he has urged the Government to review the quantum of Public Assistance to the needy more regularly in order to keep pace with the cost of living.
But he clearly has an idea of what would be considered going overboard when it comes to taxes and social spending.
“I was on a business trip in Copenhagen in Denmark. So I was talking to my Danish friend. He told me the income tax goes up to almost 60 per cent and their equivalent of Goods and Services Tax (GST) was 25 per cent. He said it’s okay because at the same time they have universal education and healthcare, but the difference between employment benefits and minimum wage is not very wide, so in his opinion, the incentive to work wasn’t quite there.”
I remark that at this point, he seems to be echoing the Government's narrative on this issue even though more liberal analysts have said Scandinavian countries such as Denmark could be a model for Singapore.
"It's about balance," he says with a laugh.
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...ade-ceo-ntuc-fairprice-on-the-record-10459284
