Since my next exams is the Econs essay paper I thought it would be relevant to pass some brief comments on the GST hike -- just vague impressions and nothing fully developed, but some food for thought.  Be warned.. econs not my best subject.

Looks like the government is trying to improve things for the lower income groups (I found it amusing how I heard that repeated about 10 times over and over again on the News last night as if to make sure we Really Get The Message).  Ok, that's a good thing in principle.  So apparently, it needs to increase its budget by increasing taxes.  It has three choices -- increase direct income tax, increase direct corporate tax, and increase indirect tax (GST).

Increase direct corporate tax cannot -- foreign direct investment and business outlook will suffer.  Singapore's economy very open, must attract lots of big MNCs.  In fact PM Lee hinted that corporate taxes will be -lowered- (so maybe the GST hike will go towards compensating for that, as well as being channelled into safety nets). 

Increase direct income tax, interesting policy -- it will hurt the rich more than the poor because our taxes are progressive (in terms of proportion, we tax the rich more than we tax the poor).  So maybe they don't want to hurt the rich so much.  Income tax also another problem: CPF.  They may SAY our taxes are among the lowest in the world, but in my humble opinion CPF is just a way of taxing us and compensating for it with delayed and conditional welfare services -- just a matter of viewpoint.  Anyway, CPF so high, plus income tax some more, our disposable income will shrink even more -- reducing consumption, hence bad for our economy.

So how? Increase indirect taxes lah.  Indirect taxes are also interesting because they are regressive -- they hurt the poor more than they do the rich, because both the poor and the rich must pay the same amount of tax for a certain good, but that amount will take a larger proportion out of the poor person's income than it will for the rich.  However, this can be offset by greater safety nets and services for the poor.  This is where the gahmen's grand plan comes in.  A lot rides on the quality and extensiveness of the services they will introduce.  If the balance is truly tilted towards the lower income, then the impact can be minimized, and there may even be a net benefit for the poor.

So, don't get too angry about the GST hike just yet.  It may be ok, depending on the quality of the package introduced for the poor.  Or it may just make things worse if impossible conditions, red tape and bloated bureaucracy makes it difficult for the poor to access the new measures.

I'm not convinced it's the best way to deal with it though.  I think what we really need is a comprehensive rehaul of the CPF/enforced savings system.  Sucks to give up so much money that you can only use if you are dead or dying.

In the meantime though, I would urge everyone to look at things objectively.  If we really want to help the poor more than we currently do, then something must give.  There must be some kind of trade-off involved.  Just wondering if we are trading off the right things.  Seems like we are taking from the poor to give to the poor, right now -- bizarre.

P.S. For all those who nag me about my studies everytime I post here or on the tagboard, it's relevant to my paper and only took like 9 minutes ok? So don't scold! :)

I know I'm on a blogging hiatus, but two things today irritated me so much I had to say something.  The first one is something I particularly wanted to raise because a) it actualizes an observation of mine that I've made privately for a long while now, and b) it doesn't seem as though anyone else is interested as a quick scan of my usual blogs and a Google search don't return anything related.  It has to do with this: "Foreign construction workers now can't rent HDB flats", screamed today's headlines - unless of course they are Malaysian.

Suddenly foreign workers (except Malaysians!) are not fit to live in the same space or breathe the same public air as us.  You know why?

"The board made the decision - believed to be in response to complaints about foreign workers living in HDB estates - known in a circular sent out to real estate agents on Tuesday. 

Mr Chris Koh, director of Dennis Wee Properties, said the decision to disallow foreign construction workers from living in public estates may have come about because of the disturbance that some of them create .

MP Ho Geok Choo, who looks after the Boon Lay ward where many foreign workers live, disclosed in a recent interview that she gets frequent complaints of the noise foreign workers make when they congregate , and the litter they leave behind in parks and gardens."

Ohh, because they cause 'disturbance'! 

Now, I sure wonder if we are talking about the same foreign workers I know about.  You know, the ones who build the roads we walk on, the buildings we live in, and the MRT tracks we travel? 'Cos I have never, ever witnessed a 'disturbance' by foreign workers.  I have never seen a quarrel, or a fist-fight, or heard them play loud music, or gamble in void decks.  You know, I wonder if these people who complained to MP Ho Geok Choo were mistaken.  Maybe when they heard a 'disturbance', they were really hearing the noise of a Malay wedding celebration or a Chinese funeral, or something.  Stuff that makes a lot of noise but we gladly put up with because we must be gracious to our fellow residents (only if they are worthy, and do not work in construction sites, of course).  Mahjong players, karaoke blasters, maybe those are the mysterious 'disturbances' people talk about but I have never seen.  As for the litter...maybe they mean the uncles who spit on sidewalks, and on the grass, and even in shopping malls? Or hmm...I know! The ashes from the burning of incense during the Hungry Ghost Festival!

Let's be honest lah.  This is nothing but a cheap excuse to excise foreign "low-class" workers from our easily-offended sensibilities.  The real reason why they are being prevented from living in public housing is because they are an affront to our Singaporean decencies.

Meanwhile, Indonesians can stay in our bungalows, talented expats can live in their executive condominums, and Malaysians, as we learn from today's groundbreaking news, can stay wherever the heck they want.

You know what we are turning into? A plural society.  Kinda like the ones that were formed all over Southeast Asia under the colonial masters of the past two centuries.  Immigrants coming in all over the place, but different communities living in the same country but never coming into interaction except for in the marketplace (as in, not pasar malam or wet market, but when we do business).  It used to be:

Colonialists

Foreign Talent (clerks, lawyers, bankers. etc.)

Locals

General Immigrants (Chinese coolies, Telugu labourers, etc.)

And now it's:

Foreign Talent

Locals

Construction workers

Aren't we supposed to be building a welcoming, cohesive society? Why exactly are we shunning the air breathed by construction workers? It is a bitter irony indeed to not be able to live in the very house you helped to build.  It reminds me in fact of the instance where maids were not allowed to swim in the swimming pools of private condominums.

It might possibly be a reasonable policy if there were some kind of severe housing shortage and citizens needed preferential treatment, but given the reasons behind it? Lame and discriminatory.  If you must, then have a preferential system, where if a citizen and a foreign worker applies to rent/buy a HDB flat, then we choose the citizen, much like how our HDB racial quota laws operate.  That makes sense, because public housing is built for the Singaporean populace after all.  But to ban them from living in our midst because they supposedly make mysterious noise I've never heard, is flimsy and disappointing.  I don't care how squeaky clean or fabulous their "dormitories" are either, in principle it is wrong.  Already they have travelled far from their own countries to work for us and earn a better living -- reasonable and human things to do.  So why are we treating them in such a high-handed manner?

Once again -- irritated! If we could look beyond the length of our own infuriating noses for a moment we would see how easy it is to, corny but true, live harmoniously with different races.  When I offer a simple smile to the domestic helper who hangs clothes out to dry one floor beneath me, or a 'thank you' to the construction worker currently renovating my HDB block who lays a path of boards for me to walk on instead of making me trudge through swamps of half-wet concrete, the gesture is returned and understanding passes between two human beings: an understanding of basic respect and gratitude between two people of different nationalities.  There is no inherent problem in letting foreign construction workers live in public housing that cannot be solved by a) an application system which prefers citizens, b) standard eviction/public nuisance laws, and c) a little neighbourliness.

The second thing which raised warning signals for me when I was surfing blogs to find out if anyone had raised comment on the housing policy was this: Singapore to tighten curbs on free speech.  For anyone who wondered what the voodoo 'light touch' Dr. Lee Boon Yang meant when he spoke about the Internet, I guess this helps. 

"Internet users could face punishment for defamation and making "statements that cause public mischief" or for "the wounding of racial feelings". Documents, including film or sound recordings, sent over the internet could be subject to criminal prosecution."

You know what this means? Well basically it means anything, as all sorts of naughty things can cause 'public mischief'.  Some things that come to mind - people who question ministerial salaries (uh oh...), Mr. Brown podcasts, and even this very entry, because I - gasp! - talked about different nationalities being treated differently in Singapore, and the various cultural practices of different races such as incense-burning, funerals and weddings, which potentially 'create disturbance'.

You know this by now -- I'm irritated.

Signing out from Pacific Coffee, Changi Airport, who has been my bulwark this past week in my A'Level preparation (thank you for letting me sprawl over your wonderful armchairs and mug away),

• Wayne Arnold of the New York Times estimates that Temasek Holdings has lost $700 million to date from the ShinCorp takeover bid earlier this year.  The Thai Ministry of Commerce is also currently investigating if the deal is legal, as it may have violated Thai laws on foreign ownership.  Things are quiet on the Singapore front regarding the issue, as expected.

• Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi receives MM Lee Kuan Yew's letter explaining his public claim that the Chinese in Malaysia are 'systematically marginalized' rather coolly, saying that he had taken note of the response, but that the remarks were 'uncalled for'.  This is eerily reminiscent of when communal politics were played during the period of merger, with Malaysian politicians riling against the Singaporean government for supposedly marginalizing Malays in Singapore.  One is also reminded of the PAP's "Malaysian Malaysia" campaign for non-communal politics in Malaysia and equal rights for all races which eventually angered Malaysian politicians to the point of separation in 1965.  Further irony exists in the fact that MM Lee had made the offensive remarks while trying to explain to a 'liberal Western audience' how a strong majority government helped to better maintain good relations with Indonesia and Malaysia.  In doing so, he actually provoked both these countries into demanding an explanation, worsening relations with them, and undermining the legitimacy of his own message.