I refer to the article “Towards a broader meritocracy” (Straits Times, Apr 20) and “Cabinet: More left-of-centre now, helping the lower income” (Straits Times, Apr 19).

Shift from centrist to the left?

It states that “The Cabinet has shifted to the left in how it views social policy and helping the lower income, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said.“If I compare our thinking in Cabinet, or the weight of thinking in Cabinet, when I first entered politics about 11 years ago, I would say the weight of thinking was centrist but there were two flanks on either side of it.

“There were some who were a little right-of-centre, and there were some a little left-of-centre,” he said. “Now I would say the weight of thinking is left-of-centre. You still get diversity of views in Cabinet, but the centre of gravity is left-of-centre.”

Focus on lower-income Singaporeans and older folk?

Mr Tharman said the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”.”

Not “focused” all these years?

So, do the above remarks mean that we were “not focused” or “less focused” on “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”, in the past?

“Statistical” evidence?

Well, like they say “talk is cheap – let the numbers do the talking!”. So, I cracked my head to think about what statistics may help to answer this question of “focus”.

Big thank you to ES

Sometimes, life works in strange ways – a reader, ES, had just sent me some Budget documents from 1975 with the remarks “Not sure if they are of use to you”. (Note: ES is also the kind soul who sent me the 1987 university education statistics (“No such thing as “tuition grant” before?“, Apr 2) when I said I could not find the tuition fees in 1987 in an earlier article)

Social spending statistics?

Back to the “focus” issue, I think perhaps a good measure may be how much we spend on social spending in the past and recently. This would be a good indicator as to how much we have done in “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”.

Social spending in the past?

In 1975, government spending on Social and Community Services (Education, Health and Others) was $676 million. Dividing this by the population then of  1.8 million (assuming 80 per cent of the total population of 2.25 million were citizens (no breakdown of population in the Budget report)) gives a per capita social spending of $376.

Fast forward to 2012, government spending (operating expenditure) on Social Development was $17.5 billion. Dividing this by the citizen population of 3.29 million gives a per capita spending of $5,319.

This works out to a 7.4 per cent per annum increase in social spending per capita, over the 37 years from 1975 to 2012.

4.4% p.a.  real growth in social spending?

As I estimate that inflation over the same period was about 3 per cent, does this mean that the real growth in social spending was about 4.4 per cent per annum?

6.9% p.a. GDP growth disappeared to … ?

Since GDP for the same period grew by 6.9 per cent per annum, from $26.1 billion in 1975 to $305.2 billion in 2012, it would appear that social spending may not have grown in tandem with good GDP growth.

Why is this so?

Where did all the GDP growth and Budget surpluses go to – accumulating the Reserves – at the expense of “lower-income Singaporeans and older folk“?

Clearly “no focus”?

Perhaps this may “statistically” support the remarks that we “did not focus” or “had less focus” on “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”, in the past.

What about present “focus”?

Now, let’s turn to the present and recent times, to see if “statistically” – “the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”", holds up.

Report card – fail?

Unfortunately, it may not appear to be doing so too, because

Social spending decreased?

“GOVERNMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE – Social Development (Education, healthcare, community development, etc)  – decreased from $17.7 $17.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE – Social Development – decreased from $3.7 to $3.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

And we have not even adjusted the above figures for inflation last year – which means that we may actually have spent even less!

In this regard, the CONSUMER PRICE INDEX increased by 4.6 per cent, from 108.2 to 113.1, from 2011 to 2012.” (“Social spending decreased from 2011 to 2012?“, Mar 19)

The motion cannot stand?

Hence, like they say in a debate – Can the motion “”the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”" – still stand?

I rest my case!

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Tote Board donates $400M to help build ‘Gardens by the Bay’“. (TR Emeritus, Apr 15)

Annual reports in the library?

Mr Richard Wan, the Editor of TR Emeritus emailed the Tote Board, and I understand that the Tote Board has replied that the government has received a Parliamentary Question on this issue and will be providing a response at the next parliamentary sitting, and that the Board’s annual reports are publicly available at the National Library.

Parliamentary Question filed?

In this connection, I understand that NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam has already filed a Parliamentary Question on this issue.

Put Annual Reports on web site?

I went to the National Library’s Reference Section and found the Tote Board’s 2010 Annual Report (hard copy).

In today’s digital age, may I suggest that its annual reports be made available online on its web site.

$8.1b turnover?

The turnover for 2010 of the Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools was $8.1 billion.

Gaming – $1,525 per person?

With a total population of 5.31 million, does it mean that the gaming per person was about $1,525 ($8.1 billion turnover divided by 5.31 million population)?

$1.4b paid to govt.?

Total betting duties paid to the government amounted to $1.4 billion.

Donate more to Charity, less to govt?

Since the Budget surplus was $3.9 billion last year ($36 billion according to IMF standards – “Budget surplus: $3.9b or $36b?”, Mar 24), may I suggest that the Tote Board be encouraged to pay less if not nothing to the government, and donate more to Charity.

Surplus $472m, Reserves $3b?

The surplus of the group was $472 million, and its Capital and Reserves was $3 billion.

Why have so much surplus, reserves?

As I understand that the Tote Board was set up primarily to operate and receive gaming revenue to help the community, why does it need to have so much surplus for the year and accumulated reserves?

$703m total donations ($61 to Charity)?

It made donations totalling $703 million as follows:

Arts and Culture                     $74 million

Charity (Social Service)         $61

Community Development     $401

Education                                  $23

Health                                        $28

Sports                                         $116 million

8.7% of total donations went to Charity?

So, donations to Charity (Social Service)  at $61 million was about 8.7 per cent of the total donations.

Its donations to Charity (Social Service) was $13, $35, $44 and $50 million, in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

Recap: In Part 1, we ended off with “Comment: Fast forward to today – ComCare receives 70,000 applications for financial assistance in 1 year against less than 4,000 in 1999!”

S & C C increases continue despite operating surpluses & $2b funds?

“According to Jurong Town Council’s annual report for 2008/2009, it had a surplus for the year of $1.5 million, and an accumulated surplus of $3.2 million.

This is after transferring $11.7 million to the sinking fund, giving a total reserve of $79.3 million.

For Aljunied Town Council, the surplus for the year was $2.8 million and total town council funds were  $59.5 million.

So, why is there a pressing need to increase S & CC so soon?

Even if we have to increase S & CC,  those in 1 and 2-room HDB flats should be spared, as their median monthly household income from work declined by a whopping 13.9 per cent in 2009, according to the Department of Statistics’ Household Income Trends 2009 report.

Lower S & C C in opposition wards?

Also, why is it that S & CC in the opposition wards Potong Pasir and Hougang are now lower than Jurong and Aljunied, for all flat types, except for 2-room flats in Hougang which at $28.50 is 50 cents more than Jurong and Aljunied?

Opposition wards much lower govt grants?

According to media reports, Government grants in 2005 per household were $560 for Aljunied, compared to $114 and $111 for Potong Pasir and Hougang respectively.

For 2009, Government grants for Aljunied, Jurong, Potong Pasir and Hougang, were $9.1, $9.1, $0.75 and $0.94 million respectively.

So, even after adjusting for the smaller number of households in Potong Pasir and Hougang, it would appear that Government grants may still be substantially higher per household for Aljunied and Hougang.

If this is the case, why is it that S & CC in Aljunied and Jurong are higher, despite higher Government grants?

So many in arrears?

The fact that the last reported statistic that three to nine per cent of households were in arrears of more than three months on their S & CC, may indicate that many Singaporeans may still be in financial difficulties.

$2b of funds?

Readers will remember that in 2008, the Straits Times reported:

… the $2 billion in the sinking funds its [the PAP’s] 14 town councils manage is in good hands, said Mr Khaw Boon Wan, the party’s first organising secretary.

TOC had asked then:

It would thus seem that in a year which saw the worst financial crisis in decades, Singapore seeing record inflation and our town councils being affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the town councils have been able to effectively  double its sinking funds.

The question one would ask is: How did this happen? Were returns from investments so good? Or are town councils collecting unnecessary excess of service and conservancy charges?

How did the sinking funds grow from $1 billion to $2 billion within the space of one year in such an adverse economic climate?

Perhaps before PAP town councils are allowed to increase S&C charges, these questions should be answered first.” (“$2 billion in PAP town councils’ sinking funds but need to increase charges?“, Mar 18, 2010)

Town councils start to get scores for “arrears” management?

“Potong Pasir scored Level 5 on four indicators, while Hougang scored two Level 5s and one Level 4. The People’s Action Party wards received a Level 3 or better on all indicators. Tanjong Pagar town council did best, scoring Level 1 for all indicators except one.” (“Opposition-ward town councils fare poorly“, Jun 11, 2010)

Town councils start to write-off arrears to improve scores?

“Only Aljunied-Hougang failed S & CC score?

It states that “Aljunied-Hougang was (also) the only town council to get a red band for its management of residents’ arrears in their Service and Conservancy Charges.

Potong Pasir was the only other town council to miss the green band for arrears, scoring an amber.

When contacted, its MP Sitoh Yih Pin said the arrears situation was something the town council inherited from its previous management, and it’s something that has to be dealt with a soft touch as it involves the lives of residents.”

So, does the above mean that families that live in the opposition wards are in greater financial difficulties than the other constituencies?

According to the report, “The Town Council is banded Red for S&CC arrears management. More than 5% of their households had S&CC arrears overdue for 3 months or more. Also, more than 50% of their monthly S&CC collectible is overdue for 3 months or more.”

More compassion or better score?

Or does it mean that the opposition wards may be more compassionate towards families who are unable to pay?

So many cash-strapped families?

As S & CC are generally only around $50 a month, is it not rather alarming that more than 5% of households cannot pay for more than three months?

Why is there such a high percentage of HDB households that may be in financial difficulty?

Less cash-strapped families in all other wards?

Actually, a more interesting question may be why is it that all the other constituencies seem to have so much less cash-strapped families?

Can write-off?

Also, do town councils write-off their S & CC arrears to get a better score?

In this regard, for example, the article “Only a few arrears are written off” (Straits Times, Jun 17, 2010) said “Aljunied’s annual report shows that it wrote off only $40,000 in the last financial year, 0.12 per cent of the $32 million to be collected.”

When I looked at the annual report, the Conservancy and Service Receivables Provision for impairment’s balance at the beginning of the year was $2,237,334.

Less the Provision no longer required of $885,078, the Balance at the end of year is $1,357,093.

Why was the provision for the year only $4,837, which is about 99 per cent less than the previous year’s (2007/2008) $467,922?

What does “Provision no longer required” mean?  That the $885,078 have all been paid up or that this was written off?

Considering all of the above, does the good score for S&CC management still stand?

In the final analysis, are town councils more interested in taking care of residents’ concerns and financial difficulties, or are they more concerned about looking good in the report?” (“Town councils’ report: More cash-strapped families in opposition wards?“, Dec 15, 2012)

- Comment: Fast forward to today – If you owe S & CC, the town council may refuse to allow you to renew your season parking. I met a taxi driver who was frantic over this as he said “how to I drive to earn money to feed my family, if I have no car park to park my taxi?”

AIM controversy discovered by “accident” due to AHTC S & CC arrears?

“The WP said AIM terminated its contract with Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), which is why the council got a red grade for service and conservancy charge arrears.” (“AIM: What is it all about? “, Dec 31, 2012)

Leong Sze Hian

“The unofficial history of the poor in S’pore? (Part 1)”, Apr 15

Share this:

I refer to the article “Initiative to aid HDB residents settle arrears” (My Paper, Apr 15).

“Dr Hong Hai, the council’s chairman and an MP in the Bedok GRC, suggested listing the names of late-payers on residents’ committees’ notice boards and in the council’s newsletter.

It is appalling to learn in yesterday’s Straits Times that up to 20 per cent of the residents have not paid their conservancy and service charges.

What is most appalling of all is that the delinquent payers are identified a s “educated and well-off residents living in executive flats and four and five-room units”.

But when the reason “may be that they know the law too well and know that we don’t have the by-laws to penalise them”, then it is another story altogether.

However, what they can and should do is to hurry up with their by-laws which will enable them to impose a penalty, preferably on an escalating scale.

Of course, such draconian by-laws will affect genuine hardship cases even more than they will the well-off and educated.”

- Comment: Fast forward to today – are most of those in arrears still the rich and educated like in 1989?

Threats and harsh measures would show that Singapore was still an “immature” society?

“RESIDENTS in the Ang Mo Kio area have joined the “half million dollar club” – about 7,400 households there owed their town councils almost half a million dollars in conservancy and service fees, an MP disclosed on Saturday.

Besides the town councils in the Ang Mo Kio area, those in Bedok, Tiong Bahru, Redhill and Bukit Batok also face this late-payment problem.

The other three town councils which had money owing to them were Redhill Tow n Council ($130,600), Bukit Batok (about $230,000) and Tiong Bahru (about $200,000).

Speaking at the Ang Mo Kio South Town Council office, Mr Heng said that if threats and harsh measures were needed to solve the problem, it would show that Singapore was still an “immature” society.”

- Comment: Fast forward to today – Singapore has really “matured” as those in arrears are served legal letters, charged in court, fined or jailed!

Beginning of the end?

Share this:

I refer to the article “Tote Board’s donations hit $1.2b” (Sunday Times, Apr 14).

Can’t breakdown donations?

It states that “The board did not give a year-on-year breakdown of actual donations, stressing that these depend entirely on the number of projects deemed suitable for funding each year.

$400m donation to Gardens by the Bay?

Thus, only $145 million was committed in 2002, for instance, and $1.2 billion in 2007, largely because of a $400 million donation towards building the Gardens by the Bay.”

Can you imagine what $400 million in a year can do for the needy in Singapore?

Since the vision of the Tote Board according to its web site is “A leading grant-making organisation that channels gaming revenues to give hope to and improve lives in our community”, and its mission is “We manage our assets prudently, make social investments and fund worthy causes to build a stronger community”, do you think its $400 million donation towards building the Gardens by the Bay” is appropriate?

No annual reports?

As to “This is triple the $400 million on average it pledged each year between 2002 and 2011 according to figures the board made available to the Sunday Times – I was curious as to why the media has to rely on figures made available by the Tote Board.

Also, in quantum, the $400 million donation is equal to its average annual total amount pledged over the years.

So, I tried to find its annual report on its web site, but could not find any. I tried googling and also came up with nothing.

In this connection, according to the book, “Doing Good Well: What Does (and Does Not) Make Sense in the Nonprofit World“  by Willie Cheng – “The last official figure (of more than S$300 million) on the Tote Board annual giving was provided in a Parliamentary debate”.

So, does this mean that its annual reports and funding or giving information is not public information – and appears only when asked in Parliament or by the media?

Alas – Casino visits statistics?

With regard to “Funds for the Tote Board have risen sharply since the two casinos opened in 2010, with more than $500 million collected in entry levies alone between 2010 and June last year, the latest period for which figures are available”, does it mean that locals have made at least 5 million ($500 million divided by the $100 per entry levy and assuming that those who pay the $2,000 annual levy visit at least 20 times) visits to the casinos?

If this is the case, then we may have “accidentally” discovered the statistics that even questions in Parliament weren’t able to get. (“Parliament: Replies that never answer the question? (Act 3)“, Nov 17, 2012)

Need for transparency?

Finally, I wonder how much funds in total does the Tote Board have?

How much does it collect in revenue every year – In my view, I don’t think the reason – “The board did not give a year-on-year breakdown of actual donations, stressing that these depend entirely on the number of projects deemed suitable for funding each year”, is acceptable for Singapore’s largest charity organisation, established by an Act of Parliament.

How much funds are disbursed every year?

What is the ratio of funds disbursed to revenue every year?

Are there anymore arguably “inappropriate” donations like the $400 million “towards building the Gardens by the Bay”?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the ComCare and Social Support Division, Ministry of Social and Family Development’s reply “Help for those no longer on Hope” (Straits Times Forum, Mar 23) to Dr John Hui Keem Peng’s letter “”Give Hope to needy couples – minus family-size criterion” (Straits Times Forum, Mar 19).

They know then doesn’t mean its right now?

It states that “Couples are aware of the benefits and conditions before they join the programme.

Mentoring is also provided as part of the scheme to guide and support the families.

Couples on the scheme who decide to have a third child can withdraw from it and its benefits. The family can tap other sources of support when they are no longer on Hope.

For example, they can receive pre-school and student care subsidies, as well as other forms of social assistance, depending on their needs. They are also eligible for the Baby Bonus scheme.

We welcome suggestions on ways to further improve the Hope scheme.”

Financially painful?

Couples who have a third child will stop getting benefits – this means that they will stop getting $2,500 a year to the mother’s CPF account to pay for their HDB mortgage, until it reaches $50,000.

For low-income families who bought a HDB flat on the assumption that they would get the $50,000 CPF grant to pay for their mortgage, it may be very difficult for them to decide to withdraw from the HOPE scheme.

Also, for those who withdraw from the scheme – do they have to refund the CPF grants given to them plus accrued interest when they sell their HDB flat in the future?

As to “The family can tap other sources of support when they are no longer on Hope. For example, they can receive pre-school and student care subsidies” – I understand that the pre-school and education benefits under HOPE are much more than that under ComCare, even if they qualify as these would be subject to eligibility criteria on a year-to-year basis, unlike HOPE benefits which continue from entry into the scheme.

So, it may not be an easy financial decision to withdraw from the scheme.

How many have withdrawn?

How many HOPE scheme receipients have even withdrawn from the scheme to have a third child?

According to a reply in Parliament on 12 November 2012, “There were 2,674 families on HOPE as of end September 2012. The ethnic breakdown, based on the ethnicity of the mothers, is as follows: 45% were Malay, 33% Chinese, 15% Indian and the rest from other ethnic groups.”

Unanswered questions?

I think the reply does not address some of the questions that people have been asking, such as – why we are discouraging procreation, given our very low procreation rate?

How many Singapore citizen babies have been lost through abortions because of the conditions attached to the scheme?

Why do we continue hurting not just physically, but also emotionally, these HOPE scheme families?

How many families are under the HOPE scheme?

Why do we discriminate against low-income, low-education families?

Why do we give generous tax incentives to the rich to procreate, but penalise the low-income under the HOPE scheme?

If we can spend $8.2 billion in procreation tax benefits in a year, why can’t we spend some money to help low-income families under HOPE to procreate?

“Shouldn’t we complement the scheme instead by putting in place programmes that help them build stronger marriages and become better parents?

If they decide they are unable to raise their children, why not provide them with services to facilitate adoption?

After all, there are many childless couples in the long queue to adopt children.”

Leong Sze Hian

Reference:

“HOPE scheme is hopeless?“, Mar 21

Share this:

Quarrel between transport correspondent and Comfort CEO?

After writing “How much profits should social enterprises make?” (Mar 7), I vaguely remember some controversy about a decade ago, about a newspaper transport correspondent being barred from a company’s functions and all contact with him, because he had written an article about the pay of the  Chief Executive Officer (CEO) being more than a million dollars.

Comfort CEO’s pay was $1.43m?

So, I went to the National Library to search the newspaper archives, and would like to reproduce the following newspaper forum letter on the issue, which may be an interesting read for you:-

“Who is being personal here?

I REFER to Comfort’s boycott of Business Times journalist Christopher Tan because of his reporting of Comfort managing director Goh Chee Wee receiving $1.43 million in remuneration last year.

Comfort is a publicly-listed company, and Mr Tan was merely reporting on information available in its annual report.

It is in the interest of the investing public, Comfort’s shareholders, taxi drivers, employees, and so on, for such information to be highlighted in the media.

In an e-mail to his managers dated Sept 16, Mr Goh wrote: ‘Christopher Tan of Business Times has made a personal and vicious attack against me in his articles.’

If Mr Goh feels that he has been libelled, he should seek legal redress for defamation.

By barring Mr Tan from all functions of, and contact with, the Comfort group, I think it is Mr Goh who is making a personal attack on Mr Tan.

Are we sending a message to Singaporeans that ifone writes on a sensitive issue, one would be taken to task?

Perhaps the media should boycott Mr Goh and the Comfort group instead.

I, for one, will not be taking any Comfort taxi, until Mr Goh gives an apology to Mr Tan.

I think he deserves one.”

How much do social enterprise CEOs get paid?

If the question raised in 2002 was whether a business that was originally founded as a social enterprise paying its CEO $1.43 million a year was excessive, perhaps the obvious question now, may be to ask how much the CEOs of the 12 NTUC social enterprises are paid today?

From social enterprise to now?

Comfort Group merged with DelGro Corporation to form ComfortDelgro on 29 March 2003.

The Comfort Group had its beginnings in 1970 as the NTUC Comfort taxi cooperative. NTUC Comfort was corporatised and subsequently listed as Comfort Group Ltd on the Singapore Stock Exchange in 1994.

Should public transport be privatised for profit?

Since ComfortDelgro owns 75 per cent of SBS Transit which runs part of the MRT system and has the largest bus network, how different would the public transport landscape in Singapore be, if Comfort  had remained as a social enterprise?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this: