8/24/2013

Tharman – A little meat and a little departure


In today’s ST front page, Tharman listed 5 priorities of govt policies that in a way are related to Hsien Loong’s NDR speech on a comprehensive health care scheme for the senior Singaporeans. Tharman filled in some meat to that general policy change and direction, and also included a few cautions and departures from the sweeping Medishield Life scheme for all, sick or unsick.

Tharman’s first priority is about targeting govt subsidies to those who need them and said that universal benefits are ‘wasteful and inequitable’. A comprehensive all encompassing healthcare benefit scheme will fit into this wasteful and inequitable definition perfectly. There is no need for further elaboration on this as the impact and consequences are simply obvious.

The second priority, to design redistribution policies to spur self reliance and individual responsibility has been the cornerstone of many govt policies. To lump every Singaporean into a healthcare scheme with no recognition of their needs and demands on the system is going to be in conflict with the concept of self reliance and individual responsibility. The reckless and irresponsible are going to pass the buck to the rest of the people to foot their bills, as simple as that. Would this be acceptable under the new scheme?

Tharman did qualify by saying that those who are in genuine need for assistance would not be left on their own. This is the big difference between humans and animals. In the animal kingdom it is survival of the fittest and the weak and sick will perish on their own steam. As a social animal, the human specie has this innate ability to want and can look after their weaker fellow beans, the old, the sick, the less able and less talented. Human beans can be caring, generous and selfless.

The third policy pointed out by Tharman is more startlingly in a way as it has been violated in many instances for vain glory and misplaced responsibility. This policy is about making ‘sure tax incentives and grants “aggressively” support and catalyse community and civic efforts, and strengthen “the values that drives us to be our brother’s keepers”’. How would spending money on foreign sports talents and paying for foreigners to study here fit into this brothers’ keepers idea? How would bringing in foreigners to replace our citizens in jobs be a good thing? We need to take care of our very own, incentivise and motivate our own to excel in all fields. The foreigners are not our responsibility and money spent on them is simply wasteful and also inequitable.

How would this policy fit into the comprehensive health care scheme with PRs and new citizens in our midst and standing to benefit wholly from public funds?

Tharman’s fourth policy is about progressive taxation, benefits and social spending. I think he must believe that GST is progressive taxation. Or would he now be more enlightened to tweak this regressive tax to tax the poor less? In this regard he hinted at the need for future tax increases to fund the growing health care needs. Here is his biggest contradiction. If the recently floated comprehensive health care scheme does take cognizance to the priorities mentioned, there should not be a need to raise taxes. Raising taxes is only necessary when the scheme is an unlimited buffet spread for all to partake with little regard to equitable distributions and prudence not to over provide with no regard to the cost involved.

Tharman’s final point is about a just and fair society, about opportunities to enjoy quality living, public spaces and our work and living environment. Would the govt be building more and smaller flats to improve the quality of living for Singaporeans, or would the dreams of the 70s and 80s when every family aspire to own a 5 rm flat or better, including private properties be reignited? Can Singaporeans relive this dream?

With the freeing of the two pieces of land in Paya Lebar and Tanjong Pagar, the govt is given a chance to really redevelop and design quality housing for the people and not more mickey mouse pigeon holes in close proximity. A new concept of living with bigger homes and space could be the future, if only the wet dream of 6.9m does not become a reality. We have more space and create even more space for everyone here, and not creating more space to squeeze in more migrants to fill up every inch of space created. Can there also be a departure from the mindset of more population for more economic growth and the deception that small and little space are good quality living, good for bringing up children?

Yes, we have the money to build our dreams. And our dreams must be better and bigger space and more amenities for the people, not more squeeze and lesser space to live like mice and competing for space and air. There is no need to drive down a road to hell when we can go to paradise. But as they say, the road to heaven is wide open but few takers, but the road to hell is narrow and dangerous and crowded like hell.

How would these five policies mentioned by Tharman be worked around the Medishield Life for all?

23 comments:

  1. Actually hor, if the govt want bigger population, there is really no way to have less foreigners or reduce overcrowding lah. And all the bad side effects that come with it for Sinkies. This is basic common sense, tio bo?

    Therefore what really matters is what the PAP Govt actually do and what really happens, not what PAP Govt says.

    Unless WP or some other opposition party is strong enough to contest 100% of seats in a GE and ready to become govt lah.

    If not, just accept the reality that PAP is the best lah. And be smart to make lots of money under PAP to reduce your suffering.

    More money = good life = less suffering.

    And 43% have already achieved it. Why not you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed. With target of 6.9 million population, there is no way things can get better for those Sinkies who cannot make enough or more money than they are making now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfortunately, despite things getting worse for ordinary Sinkies, the opposition is not getting any stronger or more ready to be govt, tio bo?

    If I were PM Lee, I would even want to increase the population to 10 million. With Sinkies, no problem one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My reading of the opposition is that they will only speak in parliament. Out of parliament unless it affects them directly, they will not want to commit in discussions that would lead them no where except to Sue.

    They are concentrating their effort in building their support in their constituency work, to get to know the people well and to take care of them.

    Talking in general is futile and a waste of time to them when they are in the minority.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the wp approach is good that is talk less and do more at the constituency level where votes are counted. You tell me lar if you think thisis not a good strategy. When pap make the mp runs the ward, the mp has no choice but to focus at that level. The rest talk in parliament and will be ignore anyway so don't waste too much time Tio Bo?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sinkies have the habit of living on hopes; itis especially so for the wishful lot.
    They hope that some of the Law makers are sensible and conscientious in the administrations of the State and the People.
    Having been disappointed times and again, the Wishful do not give up. They recall how some Ex and Late Parliamentarians like Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, Ong Teng Chong and even Devan Nair had 'worked' for the sake of the people. They seem to feel that there were many kind and caring rulers within the Cabinet in the past. Was it so when they went along with policy implementations that lead to the Situation today?

    Some Sinkies have been hopeful that some within the Leadership maybe capable of putting forth some good policies for the benefit of the People by reversing or opposing perceived negative plans. Did it ever happen? Many simply overlooked that those people that they banked their hopes on were and are the Very People that never opposed any Policy.

    DPM Tharman is one that some Sinkies are sufficiently impressed to be one benign, maybe even benevolent ruler. How is this so? His look, his demeanour and or the way he talks?

    One thing is for sure, none of the PAP Parliamentarians had ever said no to Government Policies, much less opposed them.

    So, please do not live on false hope that comes from the look and or talk of a person.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tharman is playing his cards close and safe to himself, saying all the right things not to ruffle any feathers.

    No one really knows the real Tharman yet. So far he is one sided, or two sided at most. One part was exposed when he ran foul of the law before he joined politics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I will attempt to "decipher" the good minister's manifesto delivered in typical Politicalese into Standard English so that the ululating masses of Sheeple can better understand the upcoming Ponzi-like scam/ scheme that is about to ensnare them:

    Please refer to redbean's original post

    Policy #1: Means testing -- the government is going to be the sole arbiter on who "qualifies" to get subsidised medical care.

    Policy #2: If you are a fat fuck, a smoker, a heavy drinker, a sodomist...in general the person who -- in the government's judgement -- doesn't give a flying fuck about the health ramifications of their "lifestyle choices", you will be penalised in some sort of triage system based on -- wait for it : MORAL JUDGEMENT.

    Policy #3: If you are a fat alcoholic smoker who enjoys unprotected sex with many people -- and why not, since it is your life and thus your business -- the fact that "other people" are paying into the fund for public health now gives them REASON and LEGITIMACY to tell you to give up and wake up your fucking ideas, because they are PAYING for the consequences your selfish lifestyle choices.

    Therefore if you smoke, the non-smoker has "a right" to pressure you into giving up. i.e. you can be discriminated against if you're living your life in "socially irresponsible" ways.

    The ultimate effect of being each other's "brother's keepers" is a culture of personal interference which will cause GREAT DIVISIONS in the society. This had very bad consequences.

    Policy #4: Progressive taxation -- you will find the taxes on tobacco and alcohol increase. You might even find the gambling tax increase. The SIN TAXES are easily "justified" when The State involves itself on issues of MORALITY. If that is not enough to fund the health system, then there is DIRECT TAXATION in the form of a MediShield Levy (akin to the Australian MediCare Levy) imposed on either employer or employee. There is also the possiblity of INDIRECT taxation -- which is a favourite with very clever and cunning PAP.

    Policy #5: "Fair and just society": This is a very well known "blanket policy" aka "political tactic" in just about every political manifesto ever written -- the government attempts to appear to be "all things to all people", as it, the government is the sole judge of what "fair and just" actually means. They create the term, they define the term and they implement their policy based on their own definition. You have dog's balls -- just shut the fuck up and comply, or else.

    If you thought "the spur in your hide" was bad enough, think again. This non-universal/ semi-universal Ponzi Heathcare system is a direct result of The Sheeple ba-baing too loudly.

    Here's the kicker for The Sheeple: The Nat Con was a brilliant scheme for the government to "engage" the citizens. For the government's part, Nat Con is a brilliant success. Since The Sheeple DEMAND to be "helped", the cunning government never allows any crisis to go to waste. By "helping" the government legitimises its importance, value and reason for existence.

    The Sheeple Get The Government They Deserve

    Governments THRIVE on "crises". You want help? Now you're gonna get it :-))

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hahaha Matilah, all your sinful lifestyle is going to come under the microscope. I wonder what kind of loading they are going to put on you.

    Think you just would be excluded by virtue of your PR in OZ. So you can save your pennies but make sure you no longer have a Medisave account here.

    It is better you buy me kopi kau or kopi poh which is free.

    Haven't you stop smoking? Or you are still the dustbin people, hanging around dustbins for your daily fix?

    ReplyDelete
  10. As you can see according to World Bank Data the "Tiger Economies" generally keep their healthcare costs around 5% of GDP.

    Year: 2011, Health expenditure as percentage of GDP

    Singapore 4.6%
    China 5.2%
    India 3.9%
    France 11.6% <== economically fucked
    Australia 9.0% <=== going to fucked soon
    Canada 11.2% <=== on the verge of being fucked
    UK 9.3% <== fucked for several years already
    Germany 11.1% <== rich, but being fucked slowly
    Japan 9.3% <== almost totally fucked and waiting to explode
    USA 17.9% <== fucked but still enjoying itself, because they are "special" and can print the world's reserve currency.

    All the high-taxed western democratic welfare states are in the 10% and above region. The USA today is about 1/5th of GDP!

    So this "help" which The Sheeple have been braying about is going to come by a direct cost to the sheeple themselves. There is NO WAY the Singapore govt is going to exceed 5% of GDP. This PAP govt is bug-nut crazy in maintaining Singapore's "competitiveness" and "growth", to the point where they will socially engineer the population to achieve their targets. (Count on it)

    Therefore you can rest assured: the more "help" you ask for, the more it is going to cost you -- individually and collectively.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the aon of heaven made a lot of promises in his NDR speech and then just arrow it to his Indian DPM to follow up and made it happen. The DPM has to come up with his terms and conditions to flesh up his boss's ideas.
    As I see it the greatest beneficiary to the NDR speech is the Govt and not the people. By freeing up the two big parcels of land for redevelopment the Govt stand to gains trillions in revenue. Where do the land sale money go to? It is not reflected in the budget.
    What about those former Paya Lebar residents whose houses were compulsorily acquired in earlier years for airport runway extension? Would they be compensated now that the land would be redeveloped?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey redbean,

    Actually I pay close to the MAXIMUM loading. Like I said my total bill -- Medicare levy plus private insurance around 6-7k Aussie dollars per year for family, the variance being dependent on how much the breadwinners earn that particular year.

    Please lah, I may be a beach bum but I don't raid the dustbins. When I smoke, it is ONLY The Very Best Cubans for me. If I'm going to risk cancer, let me have the best and have maximum fucking enjoyment of my "sins" :-))

    BTW, I still have a MediSave account, and still pay into it. I've been paying governments (plural) taxes for as long as I can remember, and have got next to nothing back. So what lah...it's only money -- aka dirty paper with pictures of dead people on them.

    So pay up. Grumble a bit, but still have no choice but to pay up.

    Today I'm using my London server to access your site. You should be getting your kopi kau kau goodies from google in pound-sterling. God Save The Queen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @oldhorse42:

    re: Paya Lebar

    >> Would they be compensated now that the land would be redeveloped?

    No. Legally there is no requirement for The State to do so. See Eminent Domain as the legal framework used to expropriate land. In Singapore the jurisprudence of Eminent Domain is framed in the Land Acquisition Act.

    Rule of Law or Rule By Law. Take your pick. It doesn't really matter. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. The most dangerous outcome of the Medishield Life scheme is that when everyone is paying, the medical fee can shoot to the sky and the vicious cycle of paying higher premium for higher medical bills will go and on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tharman
    Where is the money going to come from?
    Are you raiding our reserves?

    ReplyDelete
  16. >>1239pm

    The west (especially from the mainland europe perspective) is not high tax lah. If you are one that is of average family person, you are better off than in sg. The direct and indirect tax is less compare to in sg. Their 30-40% tax rate is inclusive of almost everything. Inclusive of your pension, parents pension, parents medical, kids education, kids medical, kids extra curriculum, coe, erp, low gst for food, books, medicine, wide selection of housing and cars choices etc. For the rich, they can always structured themselves into some companies which are then taxed from 12-25% after expenses (ie effective tax rate probably around 10% or less). Read about how ikea (who is owned by some rich family) do it.

    THe gov of sg is very rich and so rich they can keep giving out monies to the rich and foreigners and do silly things like fake garden, yog, free overseas travelling on public monies etc. This is because the average and low income people are too easily manipulated, missold, misrepresented.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Money cannot anyhow spend.
    Must cling onto it until we die.
    Money anyhow spend to make Singaporeans happy no use one.

    Better to invest money in foreign bank shares.
    By magic, the benefits will trickle down to benefit all Singaporeans just before we are ready to die.

    $5,000 to spend on a holiday when you are young enough to enjoy is better?
    Or $5,000 to spend on old age medicine is better?
    You tell me lah.
    Better still, ask LKY.
    Isn't it better to be feared than to be loved?
    Especially now that he is so old.
    We wish you 10,000 more such good years.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Tharman
    Where is the money going to come from?
    Are you raiding our reserves?"


    Anon,
    if you didn't know, the reserves have already been raided or been raped by 55 times. So what is raid or rape of reserves by PAP. It is business as usual.

    http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/07/18/reserves-used-55-times-by-govt-but-how-much-was-used/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Relax lah.
    Ah Loong san has given Tharman permission to spend his father's money.
    Sorry. I mean Tharman has been given permission to spend our money.

    Sorry. Sorry.
    I now very confuse.
    Singapore reserves is our money?
    Or is it LKY's money?
    Or is it Temasek's money?
    Or maybe it is PAP's money?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ripping Off Young America: The College-Loan Scandal
    ------------------------------
    The federal government has made it easier than ever to borrow money for higher education - saddling a generation with crushing debts and inflating a bubble that could bring down the economy

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-america-the-college-loan-scandal-20130815#ixzz2cuMsqbyp

    But Americans will never one day read a similar headlines about young Singaporeans:
    "Ripping Off Young Singapore: The HDB-Loan Scandal

    ReplyDelete
  21. Our young are also saddled with huge debt in housing, education and buying a car.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Our middle age are also saddled with hugh debt in parent medical and kids education.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The young, old, jobless and low income should pay nil or less for this new medicon scheme. It should be income dependent. The rich and the foreigners must pay more so that it can be more just and fair.

    ReplyDelete