| sci70047 的个人资料Twist of Lemon照片日志列表 |  工具  帮助 |
|
4月18日 High rents cut both waysTODAY Newspaper
20 April 2007
HDB rentals affected, too
Different kinds of 'expats'
Rents ruled by market reality
Letter from Ong Lip Hua
Letter from Jean Haong Letter from Evan Teo While foreigners have been up in arms over the recent hike in rental rates, Singaporeans living in Housing Board flats have also been hurt by the sudden upturn.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore taxes a property based on prospective rental income, regardless of whether it is successfully rented out. Coupled with the rental hike, HDB-dwellers also bear the blunt of an economic activity they have no part in. I believe most HDB homeowners do not rent out any part of their homes.
The fact that most HDB dwellers are in the middle to low-income segments of the citizenry and have seen their income stagnate or drop while the economy powers ahead will contribute to more resentment against the main factor for the rise in rents: The influx of foreigners, which drives up the rental market for the richer (condos) and the poorer players (HDB rental).
The Government must look into the contradictory situation of creating employment and increasing GDP while penalising the heartlanders, if they want the citizenry to better embrace new immigrants and the foreign talent policy.
I refer to the letter, "Not all expats have fat pay packages" (April 18), by Ms Meera Sahasranaman. It is necessary to distinguish an "expat" from a "foreign worker". In Singapore, there seems to be hardly any distinction between the two. To group the more highly-educated foreigners working in Singapore as "expats" in general is not accurate. Once upon a time, "expats" meant employees from a foreign country who were posted to a host country for work on either a "home-based delegation" or a "host-based delegation" with the relevant negotiations of pay packages prior to accepting the position. Those who sought foreign jobs independently were not considered "expats".
I have lived in Germany for the past one year and have interacted with people from many countries, including Argentina, Poland, Russia, Ireland, Iraq, Iran, the United Kingdom and Belgium. In Europe, worker migration is very common, with citizens from the poorer European countries travelling to the richer ones to find work.
Partly due to the right of free movement or employment of European Union citizens within the EU, many are able to seek work independently without a company-based delegation. They are not termed "expats" but "foreign workers".
Going back to Ms Sahasranaman's letter, although one may have higher living standards in one's home country, if the choice is made to move to a country with a higher currency value to search for independent work, one has to expect the cost of living to increase, especially when the difference in exchange rates is significant. An American moving to London to look for independent work will feel the pinch due to the stronger British pound against the US dollar. The same applies to a Singaporean moving to Geneva, which, according to the 2006 Mercer Cost of Living report, was ranked the seventh most expensive city to live in, while Singapore was ranked 17th.
Also, the "big difference in the pay packages of expats from developed countries compared to those from developing countries" is perhaps due to the recognition of different educational qualifications and expertise. An education from a British university is more likely to be internationally recognised than one from, say, Africa.
I read with bemusement the reactions in the news of some foreign talents to the rising rental rates. It seems that while they are perfectly willing to accept the rhetoric of globalisation when it suits them, they, like many native Singaporeans, are quite unable to face up to its reality when it does not.
Some foreigners have even voiced an intention to leave the country if things continue as they are. Surely if their revenue-generating abilities are up to mark, no company will begrudge them a reasonable pay package.
However, if the market deems them unworthy of a raise in compensation to offset rising rent, then market logic must prevail and uncompetitive entities weeded out. -------------------------------------------
Sent to TODAY newspaper on 18 April 2007
While the recent hike in property rental have the foreigners up in arms, Singaporeans living in HDB flats are also hurt in this sudden upturn. IRAS currently taxes HDB flats based on the prospective rental income, regardless if it is successfully rented out. Coupled with the recent rental hike, HDB dwellers who only wanted a decent home also bear the blunt of an economic activity they do not partake in. I believe majority of the HDB home-owners do not rent out any part of our homes. 4月16日 Have common denominator for Ministers' pay and bonusSent to TODAY on 12 April 2007
I quote Minister Teo Chee Hean in the need to "compare apples to apples" in the Ministerial salary debate. Currently, the Minister's salary is pegged to the top earners in Singapore, while their bonus is pegged to the GDP of Singapore.
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the value of goods and service produced within an inanimate geographical boundary does not sit well with the pegged to real life persons of the Ministers' salaries. Moreover, Singapore has an extremely small agriculture and natural produce base to significantly justify the use of GDP in calculating the value-add of the Ministers' work.
We should peg the Ministers' bonus to the Gross National Product (GNP), which measures the income of all Singaporeans. This will ensure that the denominator of real persons' incomes for both the salary and bonus of the Ministers are common. Minister Mentor has on many occasions impressed on everyone, that Singapore sole most valuable resource is our people. The peg to GNP will validate this fact.
Making Singaporean's income the performance indicator of our public office holders will assure all Singaporeans that Mr Maliki's "by the people, for the people" Government interview given to an Indonesian reporter earlier is, beyond doubt. This also sends an affirmative signal that the public office holders are not in only for the money, but are keen to serve the nation through the key responsibility of increasing Singaporeans' annual value.
It will also put to rest the debate that Government favours foreigners over Singaporeans in their policy making.
I believe Prime Minister Lee, who has proven the these points correct by donating his increment for the next 5 years, is the best attestment for the implementation of this peg.
ONG Lip Hua (Mr) A deeper comparisonSent to TODAY newspaper on 2 April 2007
I am bemused at our obssession and wories on seemingly "better" quality of foreigners in our schools. The mediocore highlights of how many foreign borned won high honours against Singaporeans, cannot justify the views and wories if our own offsprings are inferior compared to imported genes.
We should compare the performances of adopted foreign babies nurtured by Singaporean parents against those who were imported wholesale. This will indicate if the "foreigners are better" statement can be qualified. A comparison within Singaporeans and foreign groups' performance in percentages will also indicate if the gap is as wide as protrayed.
Singaporeans should seek to understand the dynamics behind the perceived relative poor performance against foreign borned and improve on what may be our own poor parenting skills and education assumptions, than subscribe to the mass hysteria of shallow observations.
ONG Lip Hua (Mr) 4月2日 Halt that dissonance, eldersSent to TODAY newspaper on 12 March 2007
--------------------------------------
I am horrified by the relentless frustration and resentment directed at the younger generation by the Singaporean elders, over displacement in employment.
While I agree that age discrimination has no place in employment, I question the contribution of the younger generation towards the elders' current plight.
Through their hardwork in building up Singapore, the elders have enjoyed rewards of being able to fully pay for their own flats in 5-6 years. The rapid property, stock market and employment boom of the 1980s-1990s gave the elders a wide window of opportunities to increase their capital and assets. The younger generation have largely missed these good times to face the 1997 meltdown upon graduation. Economic recovery was only in the last 2 years.
Surely, we cannot be responsible for capital loses due to rife speculation we were not able to participate in. We were too young to advise the elders towards capital protection. And we were the minority voters, if at all, in previous General Elections.
The younger generation now faces a 30-year span to pay for our first flat, stagnating income and higher inflation which does not allow us to even think of retirement, and pressures of an intensified rat race, not faced by our elders.
I shudder at the possibilities of enacted laws to procure compulsory employment for vocal elders, at the expense of the breathless younger generation. It will only cause more of us "ungrateful schmucks" to vote with our feet.
With time and patience on their hands, elders should develop businesses which the younger generation is not able to compete in. Elder networks can be developed into businesses running errands which test the patience of the younger generation. It takes half an afternoon to collate and pay bills for a few young working families, for a small fee, and spells benefits for everyone. The elders earn a fee, and finds work to pass time, while we avoid the nasty long queues.
Continued directing of frustration at us by the elders will probably mean a face-off at the next General Elections. Which the younger generation now has the majority votes, luckily or not. The greatest victim in this saga, however, will be our nation, Singapore.
ONG Lip Hua (Mr) |
|
|
