Restoring CPF rates and the disdain to our people

The joy brought about by the announcement of restoring our CPF rates in the Budget 2013 [Here] was short-lived. It was naïve of me to expect PAP’s conscience to be pricked overnight and thereby restoring our employers' CPF contribution rate to the pre-1999 rate.

Further details of the Budget reveals that the government’s intention of restoring employers’ and the employees’ CPF contribution to the current rate only extends to those low-income earners. This in turn leads to another fact discovery, at least for me, that employees earning less than $1500 per month all along are not entitled to the same employers’ CPF contribution rate as those who are earning more than $1500 of the same age group. The rationale of reducing CPF contribution rates for low-wage workers is to “make them more employable”[Here]. And isn’t this a line which is overly-familiar to us?  

Equal CPF contribution rate by employers and employees

Now going back to the pre-1999 employers' CPF contribution, specifically those years between 1994 – 1998 (Chart 1). It was a period where both employers and employees enjoy an equivalent CPF contribution rate. It was also a significant period for me as I entered the workforce, living through the detriments of CPF changes and with the trust in PAP gradually eroding by the actions evinced by the incumbents.

                              Chart 1(Source: CPF Trends and Highlights)

The Asia financial crisis struck in 1997, leading to the change of the CPF contribution proportion in 1999. 10% employers’ CPF contribution was taken off in one shot (Chart 1).  

The proportion of CPF contribution between employers and employees changed several times during the life time of our CPF and I won’t even look back at the era where the proportion of the employers’ contribution surpassed that of the employees' but staying focused on the pre-1999 rate as that was the period where both employers and employees share the equal burden of CPF contribution.  

In the midst of the Asia Financial Crisis, the same rhetoric of improving employee’s employability during hard times was used and employees were expected to take the brunt which to be fair, might be a genuine call then. There are times when individual sacrifices must be made for the greater benefit of all. However, as we know that the CPF rate has never been restored to the pre-1999 rate till this date and in retrospect, the Asia financial crisis became the golden opportunity for the incumbents to slash off the price of our labour for good for the sake of improving our “competitiveness”.

Between 1999 and 2013, one and a half decade has passed during which our Cabinet has generously increased their salaries twice:

(1)  In 2000, PM (Goh Chok Tong) received a pay rise of 14% from S$1.7 million to S$1.9 million. [Here] In that same year, employees were returned with a peanut 2% of their employers’ CPF contribution. 2% restored out of the 10% (Chart 2) deducted whilst PM’s salary jumped by 14%, demonstrating PM's greater interest of his own salary than the people’s.  

(2)  In 2007, PM (who is Lee Hsien Loong by this time) saw a 25.5% jump [Here] in his salary to S$3.09 million whilst restoring a mere 1.5% of employers’ CPF contribution to the workers bringing the employers’ CPF contribution to a 14.5% (Chart 2).

                                  Chart 2 (Source: CPF Board)

In between 2000 and 2007, our economy was hit by another round of recession in 2003 and our workers suffered CPF cuts again on the employers' contribution side by 3%, after regaining 6% in the previous 3 years. PM’s pay was reduced by 17% in 2001 [Here] , taking the “brunt” alongside with the workers. Nevertheless, he subsequently rewarded himself substantially for his “sacrifice”  and by 2010, he was already earning S$3.07 million, an 80% increase from the 1998’s S$1.7million figure. In that same year, our workers saw a mere climb of 0.5% in their employers’ CPF contribution.

Pace of CPF restoration and GDP growth

Seemingly, recessions became useful excuses to cheapen our local labour price.

Our GDP went into a negative 2.2% in 1998 (Chart 3). By 2000, our GDP made a rebound to 9%, yielding an overall GDP amount of S$165, 358.9 million, surpassing the pre-recession figure of S$145, 964.8 (Chart 4). For the effort of enduring a 10 percentage pay cut in 1999, our workers were rewarded with only a 2% restoration to their pay in exchange for a 9% GDP growth.

    Chart 3 (Source: Singapore Department of Statistics, updated as at 22 Feb 2013)

 Chart 4 (Source: Singapore Department of Statistics, updated as at 22 Feb 2013)

Our overall GDP figure grows each year for 12 out of the 15 years (negative growth for 1998, 2001 and 2009) between 1998 and 2012. By 2012, our GDP overall figure has doubled the 1998 figure. Ironically, employers’ CPF contribution has only been restored by 6% and we are still shortchanged of 4%.

GDP grows in leaps and bounds since 1999 while the pace for CPF restoration has been excruciatingly slow. And I won’t be surprised that I will not live to see the daylight of the last remaining 4% of our employers’ CPF contribution being restored to the pre-1999 rate. This amount was deducted off our pay under the pretext of the welfare of our economy. Coincidentally, PM’s pay has grown by 80% in the duration.

The incumbents who expect our workers to tighten their already-tight belts to tide the country over the bad times are the ones who entitled themselves to the larger share of the economic pie while casting the meagre crumbs for the workers. It has to be disdain that the incumbents have for our people to enrich themselves at the expense of the people. Not merely in failing to restore our CPF rates but also by eliminating the price bargaining power of our local labour with the open-door policy to cheaper foreign labour.

Practising what they preach is often not the case with the incumbents. And LHL said just this Jan during the Punggol East by-election that the PAP has stood on the side of the people [Here]. I genuinely believe that he must have sincerely thought that he was behind us. By standing on the employers’ side and kicking us into the dirt from behind.  

6.9 million. A genocide.

This figure is used economically, as mentioned in the white paper for population  [Here] and also not mentioned, conveniently as a political tool. 

Artificially reduce proportion of citizens to 55% vs 45% foreigners (PRs and non-PRs). Within this pool of “citizens”, there exists an unknown number of newly-minted citizens. At the rate of 20 000 citizenships granted each year in the last decade, a decade alone would bring about almost half a million brand new citizens and concurrently, locally-born Singaporeans are renouncing their citizenships. Locally-born Singaporeans are proportionately shrinking fast and furious in relative to new citizens, PRs and foreigners.

The difference between a citizen and a non-citizen in this country lies in the rights to access new public flats and the rights to vote and both are conspiringly utilized by the ruling party.

The former rights will ensure a consistent demand of new public flats and act as a continual feed to high property prices for resale market and private property market, beefing up government coffers without exerting any effort in growing the economy in a sustainable manner.

The voting rights will enhance the longevity of the existing ruling party if all factors that affect the voting direction of these new citizens are meticulously controlled to achieve a political advantage, such as the type of new citizens they are admitting. Potential citizenship candidates from developing or developed countries may have a different perception of what defines a “good” governance and that may give an advantage to the existing ruling party. For some, and understandably, having a MRT system, decent public housings and having pre-election dividend bonus would suffice while these might not suffice for a secured future and sustainable growth for some.

As such, the implication of the 7 million figure exceeds physical discomfort and reduced quality life but more significantly, a disguised genocide of citizens (new citizens admitted from the last decade excluded) who were born here through deliberate worsening their quality life and diluting their political influence that creates a vicious cycle of perpetuating the current political rule that will see further erosion of economic and political rights of uncooperative citizens.

Remember those opposition wards voters being deprived of their upgrading rights and access to amenities for voting against the incumbent? They will certainly make you live to repent.

人口工具与收买

2011年的人口统计显示，英国人口当中，有7百50万移民，不管入籍与否，均以海外出生为定义。

就在英国工人党执政的短短十年内，不动声色地让4百万名移民进入英国国土，有规模地大量引入移民企图削弱英国人的身份。英国人更在伦敦，在自己国土的心脏地带，成为自己国家的少数民族。居住在伦敦的人，有一半以上的都是海外出生。

期间对这股外来移民浪潮发出异议的英国人，都被贴上种族歧视和排外的标签。英国人对外来移民的这份激动，以及外来浪潮对英国人身份的冲击，我回到了狮城后终于能深深地体会到他们当时的不安与不满。

英国的外来移民人口当中，有三分之二来自印度和巴基斯坦。外来移民在文化、宗教信仰以及语言上，对英国人的文化与身份象征所带来的冲击是显而易见的。

英国工人党在经济利益的掩护下，以移民进行政治阴谋。表面上强调外来移民给英国经济带来活力，实际上，是以英国“慷慨”的福利制度作为对发展中国家移民拉票的筹码。

邻国沙巴州也同样利用人口来强化政客的政治意图。给非法移民分发马来西亚身份证，以改变沙巴人口模式，从而加强某个政党或执政党的优势。

英国工人党连任三届，也不过十年的光景而已，却从此改变了英国的人口模式。其间所引入了的4百万移民，相等于我离开狮城时的总人口，却只是英国总人口的百分之七而已。英国面积比狮城大，似乎更能承受人口膨胀的压力。然而，面对有限的资源、生活水平和文化的差异，如此非自然、有阴谋地扭曲人口比例，是对国民的一种变相戕杀。

利用人口来巩固自己的政治权力，无视国家利益、人民福利的领导人，除了无才无能无知外，更不配称为一国的领袖。

The 7 million population and the numbers we need to know.

Are we using people to grow the economy or using the economy to grow our people?

First, it was a 4.5 million figure in the 1990s projected for 2010 to 2020, then 4.5 million projected for 2040 – 2050. And now they are thrusting the 7 million figure by 2030 upon us. [Here]  

Khaw Boon Wan, the same guy paid who tried to convince us that healthcare cost is affordable with his $8 by-pass operation story, has now moved on to selling the story of good quality life with 7 million people. [Here] 

They have declared specific figures about the population size and the rate of economic growth they want for 2030, Singaporeans in turns need to know about the specific figures about on quality life by 2030 as we are supposed to benefit from this foreign influx.

On transport—private and public alike

Besides housing these extra 1.7 million people, KBW and his gang forget that people move around the island to commute to work, to run daily chores and to go schools.

Travelling comfort, efficiency and reliability are the deciding factors, not by the sheer number of new MRT lines, new MRT stations or interchanges.

Don’t forget that new lines will only bring in new commuters to the existing problem-infested MRT system, in addition to the extra loads from the 2030 population projection which may well become a reality even before 2030, as well as commuters from Malaysia when the line finally extends to Johor.

Therefore, we need projected figures for 2030 in these areas:

Public transport:

1.    Total number of commuters on the MRT system and public bus system during the peak hours.

2.    The distribution of commuters at each MRT and bus interchange during peak hour.

3.    The average number of trains which commuters have to wait at interchange before being able to squeeze on board during peak hours; the number of buses which commuters have to wait before being able to board during peak hours.

4.    Train and bus frequency during peak hours.

5.    Total number of commuters for each train station during peak hours.

6.    The frequency of train faults and bus break downs every week.

7.    The train and bus fare as a result of increased operation costs due to increased commuters.

8.    The average number of stops for each long-distance bus route.

9. The extra time required to cover the same 2013-bus route in 2030 during peak hours.

On the road,

1.    Total number of vehicles plying the roads during peak hours (buses, taxis, trucks, motorbikes inclusive please!).

2.    Total number of vehicles on each existing highway during peak hours.

3.    The total number of vehicles to be added onto the roads between 2013 to 2030.

4.    Price of COE across all groups.

5.    The total number of ERP gantries to solve 2030 congestions even though the 2013 congestion issues are not even resolved by the existing ERP gantries.

6.    The daily average of road accidents.

7.    The average time taken to cover the entire length of Bukit Timah road during peak hours in 2030 and the extra time required as compared to 2013.

On Healthcare

Apart from moving our aged parents to Johor for cheaper nursing care and getting them out of the way for the new immigrants, we should know the figures for:

1. The number of hospital beds to every 1000 patients.

2. The number of physicians to every 1000 patients.

3. Estimated queue time to book for specialist appointments.

4. Total number of healthcare workers required to support a 7 million population and whether this number is included in the 7 million population already.

5. Average number of patients at each polyclinic.

6. The average waiting time to see a doctor at polyclinics.

7. The average book time for a dental appointment at polyclinics.

On Housing

1. Prices for new flats for all flat-type.

2. Size of new flats for all flat-type

On Education

1. The class size for primary and secondary schools.

2. The total number of primary schools, secondary schools and colleges.

3. The number of places available for Singaporeans at local universities (private universities excluded please!).

On comfort

1.    The total number of people at coffeeshops, hawker centres, restaurants during each meal time for seven days a week.

2.    The total number of shoppers at neighbourhood shopping malls and central district shopping malls on weekends.

Conclusion

Admittedly, the list is non-exhaustive. However, if they cannot project the figures for the above as accurate as their population and economic target, how could we trust the quality life which they depicted for us?

And when the figures in the above areas are far from satisfying in our current 5.3 million population figure situation, it is a mystery of how the 7 million figure would translate into better quality life than now.

By 2030, Singapore will no longer remain a multi-racial country but a multi-national country (MNC) instead. Realistically, we would need multi-national MPs/ministers to represent the interest of each nationality such as Myanmese, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Filipinos, PRC and Indians. Since we are on the note of projecting figures, they might want to project the size of GRC too for 2030.

PAP’s care for our elderly

I nearly fell off my chair when I heard LHL acknowledging the contribution of our elderly towards nation-building on his PE by-election rally on 24 Jan 2013.

“老年人，他们建立了今天的新加坡。我们应该对他们致敬，感谢他们。我们知道没有他们，没有今天的新加坡。”（13:21 of the video here）

(Translation: The elderly built Singapore. We should pay tribute to them and be grateful to their contribution. We know that without them, there won’t be Singapore today.)

Too often, the PAP has propagated the myth that Singapore owes its success to none other than PAP’s out-of-the-world leadership. Thanks to the PE by-election pressure, it was really the first time that I have heard LHL crediting anybody else beside PAP for Singapore’s success. Remember his father’s portrayal of Singapore being a barren land in the 1950s before PAP took over? [Link]The entire Singapore was created by PAP and whatever adminstration, legislation or infrastructure that we inherited from the colonial British can be all swept under the carpet.

Words are cheap.

CPF is the most telling of the kind of value and appreciation that PAP holds for our elderly.

In 1988, CPF started differentiating contribution rates among different age groups. Prior to that, there is a uniform set of employer and employee CPF contribution rates for workers of all age groups. From 1988 onwards, employees above 55 years old found themselves being categorized into three groups: above 55 – 60 years old, above 60 – 65 years old and those above 65 years old. These 3 groups of employees will see their employer contribution rate reduced as compared to those below 55 years old. Once you reach 55 years old, you are subject to immediate wage cut as employer contribution rate drops. It drops further as you move further up the age group.

Those above 55 – 60 years old are relatively “more fortunate” than the other two  age groups to be able to enjoy certain years where employer contribution rate was restored to the 1988 period of 11% and in the 90s, it even rose above the 11% rate for several years. 

 

The 60 – 65 and those above 65 aren’t that fortunate at all. The employer contribution rate fails to restore to the 1988 figure (9% for 60 - 65; 8% for 65 and above) after two long decades regardless of the performance of our economy. Therefore, this is not a reactionary adjustment to recessions but a policy that underscores an open discrimination of our elderly workers. 

 Instead of protecting our aged workers, our system forces our elderly workers to make concessions under the pretext of saving their jobs whilst allowing employers to gain by paying less for the same job scope. For the same work that we do, we will receive less pay when we hit 55 years old.

We are looking at a system and a culture that allow selective devaluation and discrimination of elderly which will in turn impact their self-esteems. What is strikingly contradicting is that the work experience of our aged ministers are so highly valued that special positions such as SM, MM or EM were created for them in order to tap on their years of experience. Conversely for our workers, their years of work experience are negligible.

This is the way which PAP demonstrates their genuine appreciation for our elderly. And that is what makes LHL's tribute to our elderly sounds so empty.