TODAYonline
BY ASHOKA MODY
13 Dec 2013
As 2013 comes to an end, it looks like the world economy will remain stuck in low gear. For those reading the tea leaves of global recovery, the third-quarter gross domestic product numbers offered no solace.
While the United States is ahead of the pack, some of its gains could soon be lost, as accumulating inventories begin eroding profits. Despite glimmers of hope, the eurozone and Japan are struggling to cross the 1 per cent threshold for annual economic growth. And the major emerging economies are all slowing, with Russia practically at a standstill.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Craving genuine leaders with moral authority
TODAYonline
BY THOMAS FRIEDMAN
13 Dec 2013
The global outpouring of respect for Nelson Mandela suggests that we are not just saying goodbye to the man at his death, but that we are losing a certain kind of leader, unique on the world stage today, and we are mourning that just as much.
Mandela had an extraordinary amount of “moral authority”. Why? And how did he get it?
BY THOMAS FRIEDMAN
13 Dec 2013
The global outpouring of respect for Nelson Mandela suggests that we are not just saying goodbye to the man at his death, but that we are losing a certain kind of leader, unique on the world stage today, and we are mourning that just as much.
Mandela had an extraordinary amount of “moral authority”. Why? And how did he get it?
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Let’s not riot online about a riot
TODAY
By Devadas Krishnadas -
09 December
The incident at Little India yesterday evening was regrettable but not improbable. This is for two reasons: One environmental, the other sociological. Both conditions were necessary for the incident to occur but the latter is more significant.
First, the environment at the scene of the incident. The conditions for the riot could be said to have been in place for years. It becomes a highly dense environment on weekend nights, filled with workers out for recreation before returning to another week’s labour. Historically, small-scale incidents of affray, disorderly conduct and loitering without intent are not unknown in the area, but the numbers have always been low.
Never previously though, despite the decades in which Little India has been the gathering place for workers, have we seen anything remotely similar to the events of last night.
The oft-made observation that many jaywalk across the roads should not be interpreted as lawlessness in the district nor of workers’ carelessness about the law. The overwhelming evidence across a long stretch of time is that the workers have been generally well behaved and orderly.
Second is the more important sociological factor. In an emotionally-charged crowded situation, it is very easy to trigger a mob phenomenon. All that is needed is a spark to dramatically blow the scale of events outwards.
The spark in this case was provided by the death of a worker when he was hit by a ferry bus at the junction of Race Course Road and Hampshire Road — the busiest junction in the area. His death was unfortunate and does not justify the events that followed.
Once a few begin to overreact and behave violently, it can become quickly contaminative. Unlike individual actions, a mob situation creates the opportunity to be relatively anonymous. It is also akin to a fever, where the energy level can quickly inflame otherwise well-balanced and orderly people.
The dramatic escalation of events last night was succeeded by an equally quick de-escalation, once Police presence was reinforced. This demonstrates how effective counter-action can quickly deflate bravado and cool the crowd fever by returning most to their senses.
[Between 9:30 and 11:30, the incident grew into a riot, and was defused, without a shot being fired, without anyone else being killed. Riot bad. But resolution was probably as good as we can get.]
MOB-LIKE ONLINE REACTION
As worrying as the incident is, it is important that we retain perspective. Indeed, the continuing concern is not about the incident but the reaction — often racist vitriol — shown by Singaporeans online.
If anything, such behaviour is as much mob-like as what happened in the night.
Addressing some of the common comments, there are several important insights to be registered this incident.
First, the restraint shown by the Police should not be interpreted as axiomatic of general response to incidents of this nature. Police were proportionate in their response and maintained a situational awareness of the operating environment. However, no one should come to the conclusion that Police are not prepared to operate with force if and when the conditions are assessed to be justified.
[My question would be, does he know this for a fact or is this speculation? Or rather, was the proportional response a deliberate response, as he seems to suggest, or was it "accidental" or coincidental.]
In other words, the calibrated response in this incident should not tempt any group — foreign or domestic — to test the limits of the Police.
Second, this is not an incident about “us versus them”. Based on the available information, this was an isolated incident where a variety of factors combined to blow matters out of hand. The fact that it involved foreign workers is incidental, not central, to the events.
Those involved will face the full force of the justice system. There is no justification to generalise the blame across any group, any race or any gender.
Third, while it is inevitable that the incident would be perceived by some as tarnishing the image of a safe Singapore, what would really blight our good reputation is the unrestrained, race-based and over-the-top reaction by Singaporeans.
This would show us to be xenophobic and unbalanced — totally incongruent with our claim to be a First World city with a highly educated population.
WRONG TO LINK TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES
Fourth, there are some who draw inferences between the infrastructure challenges facing Singapore and the riot. This is unsubstantiated. The workers are not housed in Little India. They frequent the area for recreation and to socialise.
Little India is a historical place and thus does have sub-optimal characteristics when having to absorb, albeit temporarily, a large amount of human traffic. However, this is not a reflection of infrastructure lag but of historical circumstance meeting modern demands.
Fifth, some may be tempted to link the large presence of foreign workers at Little India to the population augmentation strategy. Again, this is a far stretch. Foreign workers, on work permits, have been a presence in Singapore for decades. They are essential to the urban renewal effort in Singapore. Their numbers today are not much larger than the historical mean.
Finally, it is not helpful for anyone to speculate wildly about the events of last night. Reason should be the master of our thoughts and actions. This is not a small incident but neither is it a sign of Armageddon.
At this point, it is not insignificant that the incident occurred — but it is most significant that the incident is over and was handled with professionalism and firmness by the Police. Hence, order has prevailed.
Things happen, but how we respond to them define us. Let us allow the authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and take the lawful actions to ensure that law and order is maintained.
But it is up to each Singaporean, no matter how upset they may instinctively feel about the incident, to hold themselves up to a model of conduct which would exemplify why Singapore deserves the sobriquet of being a First World city.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Devadas Krishnadas is the Managing Director of Future-Moves. For ten years, he was a senior officer in the Singapore Police Force.
By Devadas Krishnadas -
09 December
The incident at Little India yesterday evening was regrettable but not improbable. This is for two reasons: One environmental, the other sociological. Both conditions were necessary for the incident to occur but the latter is more significant.
First, the environment at the scene of the incident. The conditions for the riot could be said to have been in place for years. It becomes a highly dense environment on weekend nights, filled with workers out for recreation before returning to another week’s labour. Historically, small-scale incidents of affray, disorderly conduct and loitering without intent are not unknown in the area, but the numbers have always been low.
Never previously though, despite the decades in which Little India has been the gathering place for workers, have we seen anything remotely similar to the events of last night.
The oft-made observation that many jaywalk across the roads should not be interpreted as lawlessness in the district nor of workers’ carelessness about the law. The overwhelming evidence across a long stretch of time is that the workers have been generally well behaved and orderly.
Second is the more important sociological factor. In an emotionally-charged crowded situation, it is very easy to trigger a mob phenomenon. All that is needed is a spark to dramatically blow the scale of events outwards.
The spark in this case was provided by the death of a worker when he was hit by a ferry bus at the junction of Race Course Road and Hampshire Road — the busiest junction in the area. His death was unfortunate and does not justify the events that followed.
Once a few begin to overreact and behave violently, it can become quickly contaminative. Unlike individual actions, a mob situation creates the opportunity to be relatively anonymous. It is also akin to a fever, where the energy level can quickly inflame otherwise well-balanced and orderly people.
The dramatic escalation of events last night was succeeded by an equally quick de-escalation, once Police presence was reinforced. This demonstrates how effective counter-action can quickly deflate bravado and cool the crowd fever by returning most to their senses.
[Between 9:30 and 11:30, the incident grew into a riot, and was defused, without a shot being fired, without anyone else being killed. Riot bad. But resolution was probably as good as we can get.]
MOB-LIKE ONLINE REACTION
As worrying as the incident is, it is important that we retain perspective. Indeed, the continuing concern is not about the incident but the reaction — often racist vitriol — shown by Singaporeans online.
If anything, such behaviour is as much mob-like as what happened in the night.
Addressing some of the common comments, there are several important insights to be registered this incident.
First, the restraint shown by the Police should not be interpreted as axiomatic of general response to incidents of this nature. Police were proportionate in their response and maintained a situational awareness of the operating environment. However, no one should come to the conclusion that Police are not prepared to operate with force if and when the conditions are assessed to be justified.
[My question would be, does he know this for a fact or is this speculation? Or rather, was the proportional response a deliberate response, as he seems to suggest, or was it "accidental" or coincidental.]
In other words, the calibrated response in this incident should not tempt any group — foreign or domestic — to test the limits of the Police.
Second, this is not an incident about “us versus them”. Based on the available information, this was an isolated incident where a variety of factors combined to blow matters out of hand. The fact that it involved foreign workers is incidental, not central, to the events.
Those involved will face the full force of the justice system. There is no justification to generalise the blame across any group, any race or any gender.
Third, while it is inevitable that the incident would be perceived by some as tarnishing the image of a safe Singapore, what would really blight our good reputation is the unrestrained, race-based and over-the-top reaction by Singaporeans.
This would show us to be xenophobic and unbalanced — totally incongruent with our claim to be a First World city with a highly educated population.
WRONG TO LINK TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES
Fourth, there are some who draw inferences between the infrastructure challenges facing Singapore and the riot. This is unsubstantiated. The workers are not housed in Little India. They frequent the area for recreation and to socialise.
Little India is a historical place and thus does have sub-optimal characteristics when having to absorb, albeit temporarily, a large amount of human traffic. However, this is not a reflection of infrastructure lag but of historical circumstance meeting modern demands.
Fifth, some may be tempted to link the large presence of foreign workers at Little India to the population augmentation strategy. Again, this is a far stretch. Foreign workers, on work permits, have been a presence in Singapore for decades. They are essential to the urban renewal effort in Singapore. Their numbers today are not much larger than the historical mean.
Finally, it is not helpful for anyone to speculate wildly about the events of last night. Reason should be the master of our thoughts and actions. This is not a small incident but neither is it a sign of Armageddon.
At this point, it is not insignificant that the incident occurred — but it is most significant that the incident is over and was handled with professionalism and firmness by the Police. Hence, order has prevailed.
Things happen, but how we respond to them define us. Let us allow the authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and take the lawful actions to ensure that law and order is maintained.
But it is up to each Singaporean, no matter how upset they may instinctively feel about the incident, to hold themselves up to a model of conduct which would exemplify why Singapore deserves the sobriquet of being a First World city.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Devadas Krishnadas is the Managing Director of Future-Moves. For ten years, he was a senior officer in the Singapore Police Force.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Big Trouble in Little India
10 Dec 2013
Excerpt from TODAY
The riot was triggered by a traffic accident in which Indian national Sakthivel Kumaravelu, 33, died after he was hit by a private bus.
Police investigations showed that an inebriated Sakthivel had boarded the bus, which was ferrying workers from Tekka Lane to their Avery Lodge dormitory in Jalan Papan. After noticing that Sakthivel was causing trouble on board — the construction worker had allegedly dropped his trousers at one point — the bus driver asked his assistant, who was helping to ensure the bus ran on schedule, to get the man off the bus.
Sakthivel alighted and the bus moved off. While it was turning into Race Course Road, the driver heard a thud on the side of the bus.
Sakthivel had been knocked down and was caught beneath the bus’ left rear tyre. It was not clear whether the driver got off the bus at this point or who called the police.
[Update 10 Dec (edited): One account added that Sakthivel was leaning unsteadily against the side of the bus and/or running beside the bus, when he fell or was knocked down by the bus, and run over by left rear wheel.
"Investigators had apparently retrieved the footage from a camera in the bus that allegedly ran over and killed Indian national Sakthivel Kumaravelu at the junction of Tekka Lane and Race Course Road.
The 33-year-old was said to have tried to board the bus that was there to ferry workers back to their dormitories. But when he was told to get off because it was full, he dropped his trousers before doing so.
The police could not provide more details on the video but The Straits Times understands that the footage showed Mr Sakthivel running after the bus in an unsteady manner as it was moving off, then stumbling and falling into the path of its rear tyre before he was run over."]
At around 9.40pm, about 17 minutes after receiving a call for assistance, the police and the SCDF first responders arrived at the scene where a “boisterous” crowd of male South Asians had gathered, the police said.
[Update 10/12: A YouTube Video from a resident of the area showed more than 5 emergency response vehicles stopped some distance (less than 50 m) behind the private bus. However, in the video, the police cars which were in front were just flashing their lights. Perhaps they hoped that their mere presence would scare off the rioters? In any case, it didn't work. At 2:55 of the video, the mob starts to swarm the police cars. At about 4:00 they succeed in turning a police car on its side. A loud cheer (from the mob) goes out. The overturned police car clears the road and one ambulance takes advantage of the gap and pulls away at 4:25 of the video. Seconds later, the second police car is turned on its side. At about 6:10, a fire could be seen, which may have been an attempt to set fire to one or both of the overturned police cars. At 6:45, the fire engine crew had enough and the driver reversed (running into one or two police cars) before making good it's escape. At about 7:40 the mob turns towards a 3rd police car. At about 9:05 the mob almost manages to overturn the 3rd car, but is thwarted when the driver of the 3rd car reverses and throws off the mob's leverage. It manages to stay upright by the end of the video.
Update 11/12: From the timeline released by the SPF (below), the events as recorded in the YouTube video may have occurred between 2211 and 2230 - after the bus driver and assistant had been escorted to an ambulance. Possibly, the body of Sakthivel may also have been extricated by then, and was in one of the ambulance as well.]
Outlining the sequence of events, the police said the crowd first pelted rescuers with objects and then started punching the bus assistant, a 38-year-old woman. The police and SCDF officers had to rescue the assistant and bus driver who had locked themselves in the bus. The crowd continued hitting the bus with items such as bottles, stones, dustbins, rods and concrete slabs.
The police’s Special Operations Command (SOC) arrived [2230hrs, based on timeline below] half an hour after they had been activated. The police said the delay was because Hampshire Road was congested with buses picking up foreign workers. SOC officers had to alight and proceed on foot. By 11.30pm, the situation was brought under control.
WHY NO SHOTS WERE FIRED
The riot was quelled and no shots were fired by enforcement officers.
Explaining the rules of engagement, the police said officers are permitted to draw their firearms where there is a direct and imminent threat to their lives or personal safety.
In this instance, the officers were “very restrained” as they did not want to escalate the situation. They were focused on dispersing the crowd, the police said. It added that while officers could have fired warning shots, they decided against doing so as such a tactic might have backfired with an alcohol-fuelled mob that was unable to think rationally.
Injuries to police officers were sustained from objects thrown at them. The police said the crowd was purposely attacking uniformed personnel. It noted how a commander in plain-clothes was only pelted by the mob when he was speaking to uniformed officers, but not when he was on his own.
Speaking on Channel NewsAsia’s Talking Point programme last night, Tanglin Police Division Commander Lu Yeow Lim said the police was “perturbed” by how the crowd had attacked rescuers who were extricating Sakthivel’s body. “It appeared ... that they were targeting people in uniform, whether it was the SCDF uniform or the police uniform.”
When the police officers used shields to protect themselves, this “somehow angered” the crowd. “We are hoping at the end of the investigation we will determine the root cause of this,” he said.
...
Mr Bernard Menon, Executive Director of Migrant Workers Centre, noted that workers from some parts of South Asia might be scarred by “how they were treated back home and that could have also sparked a reaction when the (police officers’) shields went up”.
[Comment: There is a lot of speculation about the cause of the riot and how it might have been prevented, and whose fault is it anyway. The best anyone can do is speculate. Even Alex Au with his experience (in TWC, working with foreign workers issues) can only provide an educated, informed speculation.
And certainly, armchair strategists and tacticians can and will suggest how the Police could have done things better, could have anticipated things better, and could have responded better. Or how the Special Operation Command (SOC) could have better responded. All will be speculation.
The fact is, the police shot a total of zero persons. They fired a total of zero shots. When they were well justified to do so. I do not know if they are ordered to restrain themselves (by their Control or Operations Command), or they elected on their own, not to do so. And if so, was it humanism, empathy, force or habit or stupidity that caused them not to act.
I do not know. Only they know for now. And maybe their commanders. Or at best their commanders know only what they chose to tell their commanders. So only they know why they did what they did. Or did not do.
Nevertheless, the outcome was a better one, I believe, than if they had shot anyone. Even a warning shot might well have triggered off a whole volley of shots. So it was a bad situation, but the restraint shown by the police on the ground speaks to a discipline, and an approach to policing, that is commendable.]
[Update 11/12: The best explanation offered so far as to how the riot started, is that it is psychological baggage from their home countries. In their home, the police are ineffective, corrupted, brutal, and biased. And the police are instrumental to social injustice... over there. They "transferred" their anger onto our SPF. They made assumptions based on the experience they have had from their home country, and responded in a way that was more appropriate to their home country's circumstances.
They may have interpreted Police actions as trying to perpetuate an injustice, protect the guilty, or cover up a crime, and responded with a riot because that is what they have come to expect in their home country.]
Excerpt from TODAY
The riot was triggered by a traffic accident in which Indian national Sakthivel Kumaravelu, 33, died after he was hit by a private bus.
Police investigations showed that an inebriated Sakthivel had boarded the bus, which was ferrying workers from Tekka Lane to their Avery Lodge dormitory in Jalan Papan. After noticing that Sakthivel was causing trouble on board — the construction worker had allegedly dropped his trousers at one point — the bus driver asked his assistant, who was helping to ensure the bus ran on schedule, to get the man off the bus.
Sakthivel alighted and the bus moved off. While it was turning into Race Course Road, the driver heard a thud on the side of the bus.
Sakthivel had been knocked down and was caught beneath the bus’ left rear tyre. It was not clear whether the driver got off the bus at this point or who called the police.
[Update 10 Dec (edited): One account added that Sakthivel was leaning unsteadily against the side of the bus and/or running beside the bus, when he fell or was knocked down by the bus, and run over by left rear wheel.
"Investigators had apparently retrieved the footage from a camera in the bus that allegedly ran over and killed Indian national Sakthivel Kumaravelu at the junction of Tekka Lane and Race Course Road.
The 33-year-old was said to have tried to board the bus that was there to ferry workers back to their dormitories. But when he was told to get off because it was full, he dropped his trousers before doing so.
The police could not provide more details on the video but The Straits Times understands that the footage showed Mr Sakthivel running after the bus in an unsteady manner as it was moving off, then stumbling and falling into the path of its rear tyre before he was run over."]
At around 9.40pm, about 17 minutes after receiving a call for assistance, the police and the SCDF first responders arrived at the scene where a “boisterous” crowd of male South Asians had gathered, the police said.
[Update 10/12: A YouTube Video from a resident of the area showed more than 5 emergency response vehicles stopped some distance (less than 50 m) behind the private bus. However, in the video, the police cars which were in front were just flashing their lights. Perhaps they hoped that their mere presence would scare off the rioters? In any case, it didn't work. At 2:55 of the video, the mob starts to swarm the police cars. At about 4:00 they succeed in turning a police car on its side. A loud cheer (from the mob) goes out. The overturned police car clears the road and one ambulance takes advantage of the gap and pulls away at 4:25 of the video. Seconds later, the second police car is turned on its side. At about 6:10, a fire could be seen, which may have been an attempt to set fire to one or both of the overturned police cars. At 6:45, the fire engine crew had enough and the driver reversed (running into one or two police cars) before making good it's escape. At about 7:40 the mob turns towards a 3rd police car. At about 9:05 the mob almost manages to overturn the 3rd car, but is thwarted when the driver of the 3rd car reverses and throws off the mob's leverage. It manages to stay upright by the end of the video.
Update 11/12: From the timeline released by the SPF (below), the events as recorded in the YouTube video may have occurred between 2211 and 2230 - after the bus driver and assistant had been escorted to an ambulance. Possibly, the body of Sakthivel may also have been extricated by then, and was in one of the ambulance as well.]
Outlining the sequence of events, the police said the crowd first pelted rescuers with objects and then started punching the bus assistant, a 38-year-old woman. The police and SCDF officers had to rescue the assistant and bus driver who had locked themselves in the bus. The crowd continued hitting the bus with items such as bottles, stones, dustbins, rods and concrete slabs.
The police’s Special Operations Command (SOC) arrived [2230hrs, based on timeline below] half an hour after they had been activated. The police said the delay was because Hampshire Road was congested with buses picking up foreign workers. SOC officers had to alight and proceed on foot. By 11.30pm, the situation was brought under control.
WHY NO SHOTS WERE FIRED
The riot was quelled and no shots were fired by enforcement officers.
Explaining the rules of engagement, the police said officers are permitted to draw their firearms where there is a direct and imminent threat to their lives or personal safety.
In this instance, the officers were “very restrained” as they did not want to escalate the situation. They were focused on dispersing the crowd, the police said. It added that while officers could have fired warning shots, they decided against doing so as such a tactic might have backfired with an alcohol-fuelled mob that was unable to think rationally.
Injuries to police officers were sustained from objects thrown at them. The police said the crowd was purposely attacking uniformed personnel. It noted how a commander in plain-clothes was only pelted by the mob when he was speaking to uniformed officers, but not when he was on his own.
Speaking on Channel NewsAsia’s Talking Point programme last night, Tanglin Police Division Commander Lu Yeow Lim said the police was “perturbed” by how the crowd had attacked rescuers who were extricating Sakthivel’s body. “It appeared ... that they were targeting people in uniform, whether it was the SCDF uniform or the police uniform.”
When the police officers used shields to protect themselves, this “somehow angered” the crowd. “We are hoping at the end of the investigation we will determine the root cause of this,” he said.
...
Mr Bernard Menon, Executive Director of Migrant Workers Centre, noted that workers from some parts of South Asia might be scarred by “how they were treated back home and that could have also sparked a reaction when the (police officers’) shields went up”.
[Comment: There is a lot of speculation about the cause of the riot and how it might have been prevented, and whose fault is it anyway. The best anyone can do is speculate. Even Alex Au with his experience (in TWC, working with foreign workers issues) can only provide an educated, informed speculation.
And certainly, armchair strategists and tacticians can and will suggest how the Police could have done things better, could have anticipated things better, and could have responded better. Or how the Special Operation Command (SOC) could have better responded. All will be speculation.
The fact is, the police shot a total of zero persons. They fired a total of zero shots. When they were well justified to do so. I do not know if they are ordered to restrain themselves (by their Control or Operations Command), or they elected on their own, not to do so. And if so, was it humanism, empathy, force or habit or stupidity that caused them not to act.
I do not know. Only they know for now. And maybe their commanders. Or at best their commanders know only what they chose to tell their commanders. So only they know why they did what they did. Or did not do.
Nevertheless, the outcome was a better one, I believe, than if they had shot anyone. Even a warning shot might well have triggered off a whole volley of shots. So it was a bad situation, but the restraint shown by the police on the ground speaks to a discipline, and an approach to policing, that is commendable.]
[Update 11/12: The best explanation offered so far as to how the riot started, is that it is psychological baggage from their home countries. In their home, the police are ineffective, corrupted, brutal, and biased. And the police are instrumental to social injustice... over there. They "transferred" their anger onto our SPF. They made assumptions based on the experience they have had from their home country, and responded in a way that was more appropriate to their home country's circumstances.
They may have interpreted Police actions as trying to perpetuate an injustice, protect the guilty, or cover up a crime, and responded with a riot because that is what they have come to expect in their home country.]
Monday, December 9, 2013
The perils of selective solidarity
Dec 08, 2013
Too much emphasis on common interests, ties can breed intolerance of those outside the circle
By Sunday With Chua Mui Hoong Opinion Editor
When I first saw the photo of the man reportedly caught snatching about $200 from a fishmonger's counter in Chong Pang, my initial reaction was one of approval.
Good that Singaporeans are stepping up to fight crime, I thought. According to the Chinese evening daily Shin Min Daily News, the fishmonger's shouts attracted other stall-holders and passers-by. The alleged thief was caught; he struggled, but was overpowered and restrained with cable ties.
But as I looked at the photo of the bare-bodied man on the floor, with his hands and feet tied together, I had another thought: He must have been desperate to try to snatch money in broad daylight.
Many others felt similarly. The photo and article posted on The Straits Times Facebook page had over 284,000 views as of Friday afternoon. They drew 642 comments and had 602 shares.
One commenter wrote: "Tragic but may have no choice if person was violent. He will have no sympathy from his fellow countrymen too. However, too many cable ties but glad Singaporeans help to avert crime." It got just three "likes" as of Friday afternoon.
Another comment: "Too cruel. Feet and hands turning purple." 180 "likes".
Another comment: "He just probably got no money to buy food that's why he resorted to stealing. Just give him some food to fill his stomach. why must tie him up like this." This got 103 "likes".
Reading the views was heartening and got me thinking that Singaporeans are moving beyond a sense of solidarity only with their kin, to developing a sense of solidarity with their fellow men, women and children.
[And a sense of compassion.]
After all, it was natural for the market stall-holders to come to the help of the fishmonger. Common interests and friendship ties bind them. Passers-by getting involved is a sign that Singaporeans are overcoming their bystander reticence, and are more willing to step forward. Such communal initiative is welcome.
Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke about the importance of social culture - the ethos and values of a society. His main point was that the Government's redistributive efforts and social policies must support, not erode or replace, personal self-reliance and community initiative.
At its core, his message was about the importance of thinking about and actively supporting the kind of culture and values we all want for Singapore, so that it continues to be both successful and pleasant to live in.
This is vital as Singapore expands its social safety nets. As Forum Page letter writer Toh Cheng Seong put it pithily, Singapore must avoid the emerging "cancer" of self-entitlement and "half-baked egalitarianism across all strata of our society".
But to my mind, one social "cancer" at risk of taking root is selective solidarity.
Solidarity is a good thing, but too much of a narrow kind becomes invidious. Selective solidarity is based on ties of kinship and friendship. Singaporeans have always been strong in this respect. Social policies promote and are based on such kinship solidarity. Families are encouraged to pool savings and apply together for public housing so they can live with, or near, each other.
Family members can use Medisave funds for each other's hospitalisation expenses. Means-tested subsidies are based on household, not individual, income.
But while kinship solidarity is good, too much emphasis on it can turn us all into xenophobes of some kind who care only about our own immediate family, our own kin or people with whom we share common interests (fellow market stall-holders).
Depending on the situation and our own value system, such selective kinship solidarity can breed intolerance of others outside our narrow circles. So the Tan family may look out for each other, but only by keeping out, or keeping down, the Lims. Singles may say "Yes" to insurance for long-term care because they benefit from it when old and alone, but "No" to insurance that covers babies with health defects because they don't have any children.
And we may care about fellow Singaporeans if the threat is from a foreigner but have no compunction about exploiting a fellow citizen if it gives our own child or friend a leg up.
I agree with Mr Tharman that self-reliance is a key virtue for Singaporeans. But too much stress on the self and family can strain solidarity. I would like Singapore to be a society where we feel solidarity based on the ties of compassion and common humanity, not just those of kinship.
This requires us to view each other less as competitors for the spoils of life (a place in childcare or primary school, top scores in exams, a good job, a Housing Board flat) and more as fellow citizens who all deserve a fair shot.
Life would then be less of a zero-sum game and more of an experience of the commons: If I take too much of something today, someone else may suffer, if not today, perhaps tomorrow.
Then we will see that if my property value rises today, I may benefit, but young people will be priced out of a home. We will see that if this generation of asset-rich retirees who have already benefited from an exponential rise in the value of their assets clamour for more subsidies, tomorrow's children will suffer. The latter will start off life having to pay high prices for assets that may at best appreciate modestly and at worst lose their real value.
Conversely, a world view of genuine, not selective, solidarity means we would be able to celebrate each other's success without envy or competitive pressure. There would be no need to force schools and parents to hide top scores (and scorers) in the Primary School Leaving Examination. Top students should stand up in assembly to be lauded for their achievements, perhaps with others who beat the odds to do well, in the same way the sprinter and gymnast get their applause on Sports Day, and the artist gets recognition when her work of art is exhibited at the school's Open House.
If policies are meant to encourage the right culture, then clearly the decision to keep mum on top PSLE scores is the wrong one. Government policy must not pander to the tall poppy syndrome or spur a false modesty. Government policy and good parenting must instil in our young pride in achievement so that success is celebrated, unabashedly, in many different fields beyond the academic.
When the rich can feel empathy for a down-and-out man who resorts to stealing, and when parents of kids who struggle in school can feel pleasure at the success of other people's children, then we would begin to have a society based on genuine solidarity, where we understand that, in the end, there is no Them and Us; there's just Us.
[On the day this column was printed on the Sunday Times - 8 Dec 2013 - there was a riot in Little India. The facts of the case as I could ascertain was that a private mini-bus had knocked down someone (at about 9.45 pm), and the companions of the traffic accident victim responded violently to the bus and driver. An ambulance that responded to the accident was also attacked and set on fire. Police cars responding to the incident were overturned and also set on fire. Eventually the riot police were deployed.
Comments on FaceBook can be broadly categorised into the immatured (racist jokes), the horrified, the political opportunists and xenophobes ("damn SG Gov for bringing in all these foreigners"), personal sharing (tinged with disapproval - "I've driven thru Little India, and the people just jaywalk!"), and some sympathy.
But most of the political opportunists commenters did not seem to bother finding out what was the cause of the riot. It was just an excuse to bash the govt. As one commenter said, their response was to "riot online". And I think that was a good description of the political opportunists' comments.
But to bring this back to this article, there was little sympathy or understanding for the foreigners in our midst. Yes, there were some comments about how we might do the same if our loved one was knocked down by a bus. But not much in terms of understanding the foreigners. Maybe it is too early. Maybe rioting and rioters are less understandable.
Certainly, I have little understanding for the sniping political opportunists. ]
[As an aside, some commenters gave hell to a commenter who had deleted his post(s) by the time I looked for them. But from the other comments, it would seem his comments were highly inflammatory, attempting to incite religious discord, and irrelevant to the incident. I am proud that Singaporeans are able to reject such rabble-rousing, opportunistic behaviour. ]
Too much emphasis on common interests, ties can breed intolerance of those outside the circle
By Sunday With Chua Mui Hoong Opinion Editor
When I first saw the photo of the man reportedly caught snatching about $200 from a fishmonger's counter in Chong Pang, my initial reaction was one of approval.
Good that Singaporeans are stepping up to fight crime, I thought. According to the Chinese evening daily Shin Min Daily News, the fishmonger's shouts attracted other stall-holders and passers-by. The alleged thief was caught; he struggled, but was overpowered and restrained with cable ties.
But as I looked at the photo of the bare-bodied man on the floor, with his hands and feet tied together, I had another thought: He must have been desperate to try to snatch money in broad daylight.
Many others felt similarly. The photo and article posted on The Straits Times Facebook page had over 284,000 views as of Friday afternoon. They drew 642 comments and had 602 shares.
One commenter wrote: "Tragic but may have no choice if person was violent. He will have no sympathy from his fellow countrymen too. However, too many cable ties but glad Singaporeans help to avert crime." It got just three "likes" as of Friday afternoon.
Another comment: "Too cruel. Feet and hands turning purple." 180 "likes".
Another comment: "He just probably got no money to buy food that's why he resorted to stealing. Just give him some food to fill his stomach. why must tie him up like this." This got 103 "likes".
Reading the views was heartening and got me thinking that Singaporeans are moving beyond a sense of solidarity only with their kin, to developing a sense of solidarity with their fellow men, women and children.
[And a sense of compassion.]
After all, it was natural for the market stall-holders to come to the help of the fishmonger. Common interests and friendship ties bind them. Passers-by getting involved is a sign that Singaporeans are overcoming their bystander reticence, and are more willing to step forward. Such communal initiative is welcome.
Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke about the importance of social culture - the ethos and values of a society. His main point was that the Government's redistributive efforts and social policies must support, not erode or replace, personal self-reliance and community initiative.
At its core, his message was about the importance of thinking about and actively supporting the kind of culture and values we all want for Singapore, so that it continues to be both successful and pleasant to live in.
This is vital as Singapore expands its social safety nets. As Forum Page letter writer Toh Cheng Seong put it pithily, Singapore must avoid the emerging "cancer" of self-entitlement and "half-baked egalitarianism across all strata of our society".
But to my mind, one social "cancer" at risk of taking root is selective solidarity.
Solidarity is a good thing, but too much of a narrow kind becomes invidious. Selective solidarity is based on ties of kinship and friendship. Singaporeans have always been strong in this respect. Social policies promote and are based on such kinship solidarity. Families are encouraged to pool savings and apply together for public housing so they can live with, or near, each other.
Family members can use Medisave funds for each other's hospitalisation expenses. Means-tested subsidies are based on household, not individual, income.
But while kinship solidarity is good, too much emphasis on it can turn us all into xenophobes of some kind who care only about our own immediate family, our own kin or people with whom we share common interests (fellow market stall-holders).
Depending on the situation and our own value system, such selective kinship solidarity can breed intolerance of others outside our narrow circles. So the Tan family may look out for each other, but only by keeping out, or keeping down, the Lims. Singles may say "Yes" to insurance for long-term care because they benefit from it when old and alone, but "No" to insurance that covers babies with health defects because they don't have any children.
And we may care about fellow Singaporeans if the threat is from a foreigner but have no compunction about exploiting a fellow citizen if it gives our own child or friend a leg up.
I agree with Mr Tharman that self-reliance is a key virtue for Singaporeans. But too much stress on the self and family can strain solidarity. I would like Singapore to be a society where we feel solidarity based on the ties of compassion and common humanity, not just those of kinship.
This requires us to view each other less as competitors for the spoils of life (a place in childcare or primary school, top scores in exams, a good job, a Housing Board flat) and more as fellow citizens who all deserve a fair shot.
Life would then be less of a zero-sum game and more of an experience of the commons: If I take too much of something today, someone else may suffer, if not today, perhaps tomorrow.
Then we will see that if my property value rises today, I may benefit, but young people will be priced out of a home. We will see that if this generation of asset-rich retirees who have already benefited from an exponential rise in the value of their assets clamour for more subsidies, tomorrow's children will suffer. The latter will start off life having to pay high prices for assets that may at best appreciate modestly and at worst lose their real value.
Conversely, a world view of genuine, not selective, solidarity means we would be able to celebrate each other's success without envy or competitive pressure. There would be no need to force schools and parents to hide top scores (and scorers) in the Primary School Leaving Examination. Top students should stand up in assembly to be lauded for their achievements, perhaps with others who beat the odds to do well, in the same way the sprinter and gymnast get their applause on Sports Day, and the artist gets recognition when her work of art is exhibited at the school's Open House.
If policies are meant to encourage the right culture, then clearly the decision to keep mum on top PSLE scores is the wrong one. Government policy must not pander to the tall poppy syndrome or spur a false modesty. Government policy and good parenting must instil in our young pride in achievement so that success is celebrated, unabashedly, in many different fields beyond the academic.
When the rich can feel empathy for a down-and-out man who resorts to stealing, and when parents of kids who struggle in school can feel pleasure at the success of other people's children, then we would begin to have a society based on genuine solidarity, where we understand that, in the end, there is no Them and Us; there's just Us.
[On the day this column was printed on the Sunday Times - 8 Dec 2013 - there was a riot in Little India. The facts of the case as I could ascertain was that a private mini-bus had knocked down someone (at about 9.45 pm), and the companions of the traffic accident victim responded violently to the bus and driver. An ambulance that responded to the accident was also attacked and set on fire. Police cars responding to the incident were overturned and also set on fire. Eventually the riot police were deployed.
 |
| Ambulance on fire, Police car overturned. Riot at Little India, 8 Dec 2013 |
But most of the political opportunists commenters did not seem to bother finding out what was the cause of the riot. It was just an excuse to bash the govt. As one commenter said, their response was to "riot online". And I think that was a good description of the political opportunists' comments.
But to bring this back to this article, there was little sympathy or understanding for the foreigners in our midst. Yes, there were some comments about how we might do the same if our loved one was knocked down by a bus. But not much in terms of understanding the foreigners. Maybe it is too early. Maybe rioting and rioters are less understandable.
Certainly, I have little understanding for the sniping political opportunists. ]
[As an aside, some commenters gave hell to a commenter who had deleted his post(s) by the time I looked for them. But from the other comments, it would seem his comments were highly inflammatory, attempting to incite religious discord, and irrelevant to the incident. I am proud that Singaporeans are able to reject such rabble-rousing, opportunistic behaviour. ]
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Asset-rich, cash-poor retirees speak up
Nov 30, 2013
They live in landed property but some are so cash-strapped, they hope for low-wage jobs and Workfare. Amid many calls on the public purse, how can their needs be addressed?
By Andrea Ong And Maryam Mokhtar
SEVENTY-YEAR-OLD Wen Zhen counts every cent. He eats two slices of bread for breakfast and lunch each. For dinner, he cooks a vegetable dish, paired with a $2 packet of rice that he ekes out over two nights.
Yet outwardly, the retired quality surveyor - who declined to give his full name - would seem to have no money worries. After all, he lives in landed property.
Home is a single-storey terraced house in Opera Estate in Joo Chiat constituency bought by his late father for $17,000 in the 1960s. The 150 sq m house is in original condition and is dwarfed by swanky three-storey homes, but it is worth $1.6 million.
This resident of a millionaire row gets by on some savings and a monthly allowance of $500 from his son, who lives overseas.
Not only that, but Mr Wen Zhen, who is separated from his wife, says his estranged brother has threatened to sell off the house: "I just hope nobody chases me out, because I will have nowhere else to go."
Living in a single-storey terraced house on the same estate, and worrying about financial stability in the future, is administrator Dai S. L., 48. She looks after her 75-year-old mother and 80-year-old father, a wheelchair user. Her firm is not doing well and she is afraid of losing her job.
Ms Dai knows downsizing will free up much-needed cash, but says: "There is no option of selling this house as long as both my parents are still alive. This house was bought by my grandfather, and it means a lot to them."
The retiree residents of Joo Chiat constituency were in the news recently when Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong held a dialogue session there and they highlighted their plight.
One retiree who spoke up was pioneer resident Chris Chen, 70. The neighbourhood committee chairman noted that those in the estate paid hefty property taxes though they bought their homes decades ago at "less than the cost of buying a car today". He says he is doing fine, but knows of many retired neighbours who feel the pinch from taxes or medical bills.
These seniors are the face of a growing group of Singaporeans who are asset-rich but cash-poor - they have not much savings or income, yet receive little in government help as their property assets mean they may not meet qualifying criteria.
Mr Wong assured residents the Government is "very mindful of this particular group of sandwiched Singaporeans" in designing its tax system, which is moving to a more progressive model.
Clearly, some of these asset-rich, cash-poor retirees are in need, but how can the Government identify those elderly who are truly less well-off, regardless of address, and where should it draw the line in giving assistance?
Too much invested?
SINCE Independence, home ownership has been linked to national identity and as a way for Singaporeans to own an asset that keeps giving as property values appreciate. But this may have created its own problem - putting too much money into homes and retiring with too little savings on hand.
Professor Benedict Koh, director of the Singapore Management University's Centre for Silver Security, says the asset-rich, cash-poor phenomenon is an outcome of over-investment in property. And the proportion of such seniors is only going to rise as the population ages, say Prof Koh and other observers.
[This is an over-simplification. In the first example, the 70-yr-old was living is a home bought at $17k in the 60s, by his father. How is that over-investment? In the second example, the woman is living in the home bought by her grandfather. And the other cases raised by the senior citizens of Joo Chiat were also homes bought decades ago when prices were low. How are all these "over-investment" in property? These people bought the homes that were available then. Or lived in houses that were bought by their parents. The answer is not so simple.]
Property price rises over the last 30 years have led to retirement savings being locked up in housing, he says.
A 2007 study he led found that 43.9 per cent of cumulative Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings have been invested in properties, based on CPF data from 2005. He also calculates that the average CPF balance for all age groups falls short of the current minimum sum of $148,000, based on data from CPF's 2012 annual report.
Ms Peh Kim Choo, director of Hua Mei Centre for Successful Ageing, is worried that the asset-rich, cash-poor problem will be exacerbated as baby-boomers retire over the next 20 years.
This is the generation that entered the workforce after CPF and the message of home ownership were introduced, she says.
As more of these folk retire, says Ms Peh, "that is where we will see a lot more of the asset-rich, cash-poor situation".
It cuts across both public and private housing, she notes. Her centre has counselled such seniors living in larger HDB flats.
However, the phenomenon is arguably more pronounced for elderly private estate residents. Typically, they bought their private homes at much lower prices in the 1960s or 1970s.
Retired principal Ho Chee Peng, 77, is a first-generation resident of Teachers Estate who bought his terraced house for $24,700 in 1969. He and his wife, retired teacher Ho Fong Oi, 71, live off their savings. But they have elderly and widowed neighbours without much savings and income who do not get the same government benefits as someone who may live in an HDB flat but drives a Mercedes or Maserati.
Such situations make retirees like them question: Who is to say that one group is better off than the other?
For richer or poorer
THE Government's means-testing for large-scale special transfers like the GST Voucher and CPF top-ups has two main criteria: assessable income (AI) and annual value (AV) of residence, or the estimated annual rental that could be collected for a property. They provide a proxy for assessing a person's income and wealth.
During his visit to Joo Chiat, Mr Wong said it is fair for those with more income and wealth to pay higher taxes to fund greater public spending.
He spoke of how the Government has moved on the means-testing and tax systems to better take into account the asset-rich and cash-poor elderly. It now uses annual value instead of HDB flat type as a qualifying criterion for Budget surplus transfer schemes as this benefits owners of lower-end private property and is a "fairer system".
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) tells Insight it switched to annual value as a means-testing criterion in 2003, when the Economic Restructuring Shares (ERS) scheme was introduced. That allowed those in private properties with lower annual value to benefit from the higher quantum of ERS, compared with the New Singapore Shares in 2001 which depended on HDB flat type.
"Our approach of using both AI and AV as criteria is a practical way of identifying those who are less well-off, from among the full population of adult Singaporeans. It is not perfect, but broadly equitable and progressive," said MOF.
That complements other schemes that are less broad-based, allowing for more customised assessment of individual needs, MOF said.
The Government is also moving towards a more progressive tax system, with measures introduced in this year's Budget giving an indication of future directions.
It is lifting property tax rates for the top-most tier of homes with AVs of above $59,000, as a form of wealth tax. But when the new rates kick in next year, 95 per cent of all owner-occupied homes will pay lower property tax, said MOF. This covers all HDB owner-occupiers, including retirees, and 74 per cent of owner-occupied private homes.
Responding to Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim at the Budget debate, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said the Government, in designing the new scheme, had studied where older Singaporeans owned private homes to ensure their situation was taken into account.
For instance, they looked at Opera Estate, Teachers Estate and Serangoon Gardens, which falls within Ms Lim's Serangoon ward in Aljunied GRC.
Mr Tharman said "at least 90 per cent of even the semi-detached properties in these older estates will not face higher property tax rates as a result of this move".
Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng feels there has been a change in the Government's mindset, and the current means-testing methods "by and large are quite fair and address most of the residents who do need help".
But some gaps remain, said Mr Seah and other MPs with larger concentrations of retired residents living in private estates.
One sticking point is the annual value threshold of $13,000 for several subsidies and schemes.
As seen in the Joo Chiat dialogue, schemes that help alleviate the cost of health care are upper-most on retirees' minds.
Ms Lim has asked several times in Parliament if the threshold can be reviewed for the Community Health Assist Scheme (Chas), which subsidises care at private GPs. Chas looks at per capita household monthly income, or annual value for economically inactive households. The latter in effect disqualifies retirees living in property of higher annual value even if they are cash-poor.
Economically inactive patients with property annual value above $13,000 get less subsidies for staying in B2 and C-class hospital wards.
[CHAS should just look at annual income which adds to cash flow. AV does not add to cash flow unless the home is rented out in whole or in part. If rented out in whole, where is the owner to stay? If rented out in part will the rent be sufficient to offset property tax and provide some income?]
The $13,000 annual value criterion also applies to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS). Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh told Insight that this disqualified some of his private estate constituents who wanted to take on low-paying jobs to support themselves after retirement.
In its response to Insight, MOF noted the $13,000 annual value threshold covers all HDB flats.
The $21,000 annual value criterion for GST Voucher, on the other hand, covers all HDB flats and about 15 per cent of all private properties - or about 80 per cent of all properties.
The MOF also said retirees living in properties with higher annual values can still benefit from "substantial health-care subsidies" at polyclinics and public hospitals as well as through Medisave top-ups. In this year's Budget, the Medisave top-up of $200 benefited 1.5 million Singaporean citizens aged 45 and above, regardless of where they lived.
However, there are those who feel the asset-rich are being too demanding. SMU's Prof Koh believes "it would be inequitable for well-off retirees to insist on holding on to their wealth in property but want handouts from the Government because they don't have enough cashflow".
In a letter to The Straits Times Forum Page this week, Mr Toh Cheng Seong said asset-rich, cash-poor seniors should "spare a thought for those who are in greater need of public help".
This echoes the more pragmatic line taken by the Government in the past: Cash-strapped seniors with high-value assets should monetise their property, whether by downsizing, sub-letting rooms or taking up a reverse mortgage.
But that is not always a viable option, say observers and MPs.
Ms Lim tells Insight: "To ask them to sell and downgrade is an emotional decision, not just dollars and cents."
Mr Singh, whose Kebun Baru ward includes Teachers Estate and Sembawang Hills, says: "Some mentioned to me that they want to spend their last years in their own house and it will be unfair for them to be asked to move to a new environment."
[Reverse Mortgage was specifically designed for this situation.]
Uprooting and moving to an unfamiliar environment can also be traumatising for the old, say social workers and sociologists.
Dr Kang Soon Hock, head of the social science core at SIM University, says the elderly in private property may find it hard to find a cheaper, smaller home in the same area, though "it would be best if seniors, who choose to downsize, are able to remain close to the area they have been living for a large part of their lives".
It is a hard trade-off for those involved. Mr Seah tries to explore options for residents who say they are asset-rich and cash-poor, such as sub-letting a room.
Still, as Joo Chiat MP Charles Chong puts it: "The perception of heartlanders is that (asset-rich, cash-poor retirees) are better off. If the Government gives assistance to them, they would feel some sort of injustice. But we see it at at the micro and individual level, and we see how heartbreaking it is."
On top of that, economics don Chia Ngee Choon of the National University of Singapore says there could be other social or behavioural motives in play. For instance, the desire to leave a bequest to one's children is "very strong".
[Well and good. The children wants a bequest? They should help pay for the maintenance of the home, as well as the living expenses of the parents. No?]
What can be done?
WHAT then can be done to improve the situation of these asset-rich, cash-poor retirees?
One suggestion is to extend the full benefits of some "essential" schemes to all seniors above a certain age, like the senior citizen concession card for public transport.
Retired senior lab technologist Vincent Tan, 77, who lives in Teachers Estate, says: "Why not cast the net wider to include everyone above a certain age?"
Mr Singh says this could be done under the Pioneer Generation Package announced at this year's National Day Rally: "Many bought properties a long time ago when there were no HDB flats and hence did not enjoy the subsidy of public housing. I think we can be generous and give them help like Chas and other subsidies."
Alternatively, he adds, the annual value criterion could be lifted for schemes like WIS and Chas.
Hua Mei Centre's Ms Peh suggests a "basic universal package" for the elderly, which would be in line with recent moves like removing the age limit for MediShield Life.
Mr Seah favours raising taxes on the rich - whether via income, property or luxury cars - to help the less well-off.
SMU's Prof Koh says, however, the Government should spend more effort tackling "the underlying cause of the asset-rich, cash-poor dilemma" - over-investment in property. He calls for a cap on how much CPF savings can be tied up in property.
[This is important! The problem is not simply "over-investment", it is property price inflation. And this is in part caused by the easy availability of CPF savings, which is not truly fungible. Since one of the uses of CPF savings (pre-retirement) is to purchase property, the over-abundance of CPF has led to price increases specifically in the housing market. Limit the use of CPF (for resale flats) to the equivalent value/price of new HDB flats in the area. This would curb resale flat price increases. And the "over-investment".]
Observers say greater financial literacy and education is needed. "I don't think anyone really knows how much we really need to grow old," says Ms Peh.
They live in landed property but some are so cash-strapped, they hope for low-wage jobs and Workfare. Amid many calls on the public purse, how can their needs be addressed?
By Andrea Ong And Maryam Mokhtar
SEVENTY-YEAR-OLD Wen Zhen counts every cent. He eats two slices of bread for breakfast and lunch each. For dinner, he cooks a vegetable dish, paired with a $2 packet of rice that he ekes out over two nights.
Yet outwardly, the retired quality surveyor - who declined to give his full name - would seem to have no money worries. After all, he lives in landed property.
Home is a single-storey terraced house in Opera Estate in Joo Chiat constituency bought by his late father for $17,000 in the 1960s. The 150 sq m house is in original condition and is dwarfed by swanky three-storey homes, but it is worth $1.6 million.
This resident of a millionaire row gets by on some savings and a monthly allowance of $500 from his son, who lives overseas.
Not only that, but Mr Wen Zhen, who is separated from his wife, says his estranged brother has threatened to sell off the house: "I just hope nobody chases me out, because I will have nowhere else to go."
Living in a single-storey terraced house on the same estate, and worrying about financial stability in the future, is administrator Dai S. L., 48. She looks after her 75-year-old mother and 80-year-old father, a wheelchair user. Her firm is not doing well and she is afraid of losing her job.
Ms Dai knows downsizing will free up much-needed cash, but says: "There is no option of selling this house as long as both my parents are still alive. This house was bought by my grandfather, and it means a lot to them."
The retiree residents of Joo Chiat constituency were in the news recently when Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong held a dialogue session there and they highlighted their plight.
One retiree who spoke up was pioneer resident Chris Chen, 70. The neighbourhood committee chairman noted that those in the estate paid hefty property taxes though they bought their homes decades ago at "less than the cost of buying a car today". He says he is doing fine, but knows of many retired neighbours who feel the pinch from taxes or medical bills.
These seniors are the face of a growing group of Singaporeans who are asset-rich but cash-poor - they have not much savings or income, yet receive little in government help as their property assets mean they may not meet qualifying criteria.
Mr Wong assured residents the Government is "very mindful of this particular group of sandwiched Singaporeans" in designing its tax system, which is moving to a more progressive model.
Clearly, some of these asset-rich, cash-poor retirees are in need, but how can the Government identify those elderly who are truly less well-off, regardless of address, and where should it draw the line in giving assistance?
Too much invested?
SINCE Independence, home ownership has been linked to national identity and as a way for Singaporeans to own an asset that keeps giving as property values appreciate. But this may have created its own problem - putting too much money into homes and retiring with too little savings on hand.
Professor Benedict Koh, director of the Singapore Management University's Centre for Silver Security, says the asset-rich, cash-poor phenomenon is an outcome of over-investment in property. And the proportion of such seniors is only going to rise as the population ages, say Prof Koh and other observers.
[This is an over-simplification. In the first example, the 70-yr-old was living is a home bought at $17k in the 60s, by his father. How is that over-investment? In the second example, the woman is living in the home bought by her grandfather. And the other cases raised by the senior citizens of Joo Chiat were also homes bought decades ago when prices were low. How are all these "over-investment" in property? These people bought the homes that were available then. Or lived in houses that were bought by their parents. The answer is not so simple.]
Property price rises over the last 30 years have led to retirement savings being locked up in housing, he says.
A 2007 study he led found that 43.9 per cent of cumulative Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings have been invested in properties, based on CPF data from 2005. He also calculates that the average CPF balance for all age groups falls short of the current minimum sum of $148,000, based on data from CPF's 2012 annual report.
Ms Peh Kim Choo, director of Hua Mei Centre for Successful Ageing, is worried that the asset-rich, cash-poor problem will be exacerbated as baby-boomers retire over the next 20 years.
This is the generation that entered the workforce after CPF and the message of home ownership were introduced, she says.
As more of these folk retire, says Ms Peh, "that is where we will see a lot more of the asset-rich, cash-poor situation".
It cuts across both public and private housing, she notes. Her centre has counselled such seniors living in larger HDB flats.
However, the phenomenon is arguably more pronounced for elderly private estate residents. Typically, they bought their private homes at much lower prices in the 1960s or 1970s.
Retired principal Ho Chee Peng, 77, is a first-generation resident of Teachers Estate who bought his terraced house for $24,700 in 1969. He and his wife, retired teacher Ho Fong Oi, 71, live off their savings. But they have elderly and widowed neighbours without much savings and income who do not get the same government benefits as someone who may live in an HDB flat but drives a Mercedes or Maserati.
Such situations make retirees like them question: Who is to say that one group is better off than the other?
For richer or poorer
THE Government's means-testing for large-scale special transfers like the GST Voucher and CPF top-ups has two main criteria: assessable income (AI) and annual value (AV) of residence, or the estimated annual rental that could be collected for a property. They provide a proxy for assessing a person's income and wealth.
During his visit to Joo Chiat, Mr Wong said it is fair for those with more income and wealth to pay higher taxes to fund greater public spending.
He spoke of how the Government has moved on the means-testing and tax systems to better take into account the asset-rich and cash-poor elderly. It now uses annual value instead of HDB flat type as a qualifying criterion for Budget surplus transfer schemes as this benefits owners of lower-end private property and is a "fairer system".
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) tells Insight it switched to annual value as a means-testing criterion in 2003, when the Economic Restructuring Shares (ERS) scheme was introduced. That allowed those in private properties with lower annual value to benefit from the higher quantum of ERS, compared with the New Singapore Shares in 2001 which depended on HDB flat type.
"Our approach of using both AI and AV as criteria is a practical way of identifying those who are less well-off, from among the full population of adult Singaporeans. It is not perfect, but broadly equitable and progressive," said MOF.
That complements other schemes that are less broad-based, allowing for more customised assessment of individual needs, MOF said.
The Government is also moving towards a more progressive tax system, with measures introduced in this year's Budget giving an indication of future directions.
It is lifting property tax rates for the top-most tier of homes with AVs of above $59,000, as a form of wealth tax. But when the new rates kick in next year, 95 per cent of all owner-occupied homes will pay lower property tax, said MOF. This covers all HDB owner-occupiers, including retirees, and 74 per cent of owner-occupied private homes.
Responding to Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim at the Budget debate, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said the Government, in designing the new scheme, had studied where older Singaporeans owned private homes to ensure their situation was taken into account.
For instance, they looked at Opera Estate, Teachers Estate and Serangoon Gardens, which falls within Ms Lim's Serangoon ward in Aljunied GRC.
Mr Tharman said "at least 90 per cent of even the semi-detached properties in these older estates will not face higher property tax rates as a result of this move".
Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng feels there has been a change in the Government's mindset, and the current means-testing methods "by and large are quite fair and address most of the residents who do need help".
But some gaps remain, said Mr Seah and other MPs with larger concentrations of retired residents living in private estates.
One sticking point is the annual value threshold of $13,000 for several subsidies and schemes.
As seen in the Joo Chiat dialogue, schemes that help alleviate the cost of health care are upper-most on retirees' minds.
Ms Lim has asked several times in Parliament if the threshold can be reviewed for the Community Health Assist Scheme (Chas), which subsidises care at private GPs. Chas looks at per capita household monthly income, or annual value for economically inactive households. The latter in effect disqualifies retirees living in property of higher annual value even if they are cash-poor.
Economically inactive patients with property annual value above $13,000 get less subsidies for staying in B2 and C-class hospital wards.
[CHAS should just look at annual income which adds to cash flow. AV does not add to cash flow unless the home is rented out in whole or in part. If rented out in whole, where is the owner to stay? If rented out in part will the rent be sufficient to offset property tax and provide some income?]
The $13,000 annual value criterion also applies to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS). Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh told Insight that this disqualified some of his private estate constituents who wanted to take on low-paying jobs to support themselves after retirement.
In its response to Insight, MOF noted the $13,000 annual value threshold covers all HDB flats.
The $21,000 annual value criterion for GST Voucher, on the other hand, covers all HDB flats and about 15 per cent of all private properties - or about 80 per cent of all properties.
The MOF also said retirees living in properties with higher annual values can still benefit from "substantial health-care subsidies" at polyclinics and public hospitals as well as through Medisave top-ups. In this year's Budget, the Medisave top-up of $200 benefited 1.5 million Singaporean citizens aged 45 and above, regardless of where they lived.
However, there are those who feel the asset-rich are being too demanding. SMU's Prof Koh believes "it would be inequitable for well-off retirees to insist on holding on to their wealth in property but want handouts from the Government because they don't have enough cashflow".
In a letter to The Straits Times Forum Page this week, Mr Toh Cheng Seong said asset-rich, cash-poor seniors should "spare a thought for those who are in greater need of public help".
This echoes the more pragmatic line taken by the Government in the past: Cash-strapped seniors with high-value assets should monetise their property, whether by downsizing, sub-letting rooms or taking up a reverse mortgage.
But that is not always a viable option, say observers and MPs.
Ms Lim tells Insight: "To ask them to sell and downgrade is an emotional decision, not just dollars and cents."
Mr Singh, whose Kebun Baru ward includes Teachers Estate and Sembawang Hills, says: "Some mentioned to me that they want to spend their last years in their own house and it will be unfair for them to be asked to move to a new environment."
[Reverse Mortgage was specifically designed for this situation.]
Uprooting and moving to an unfamiliar environment can also be traumatising for the old, say social workers and sociologists.
Dr Kang Soon Hock, head of the social science core at SIM University, says the elderly in private property may find it hard to find a cheaper, smaller home in the same area, though "it would be best if seniors, who choose to downsize, are able to remain close to the area they have been living for a large part of their lives".
It is a hard trade-off for those involved. Mr Seah tries to explore options for residents who say they are asset-rich and cash-poor, such as sub-letting a room.
Still, as Joo Chiat MP Charles Chong puts it: "The perception of heartlanders is that (asset-rich, cash-poor retirees) are better off. If the Government gives assistance to them, they would feel some sort of injustice. But we see it at at the micro and individual level, and we see how heartbreaking it is."
On top of that, economics don Chia Ngee Choon of the National University of Singapore says there could be other social or behavioural motives in play. For instance, the desire to leave a bequest to one's children is "very strong".
[Well and good. The children wants a bequest? They should help pay for the maintenance of the home, as well as the living expenses of the parents. No?]
What can be done?
WHAT then can be done to improve the situation of these asset-rich, cash-poor retirees?
One suggestion is to extend the full benefits of some "essential" schemes to all seniors above a certain age, like the senior citizen concession card for public transport.
Retired senior lab technologist Vincent Tan, 77, who lives in Teachers Estate, says: "Why not cast the net wider to include everyone above a certain age?"
Mr Singh says this could be done under the Pioneer Generation Package announced at this year's National Day Rally: "Many bought properties a long time ago when there were no HDB flats and hence did not enjoy the subsidy of public housing. I think we can be generous and give them help like Chas and other subsidies."
Alternatively, he adds, the annual value criterion could be lifted for schemes like WIS and Chas.
Hua Mei Centre's Ms Peh suggests a "basic universal package" for the elderly, which would be in line with recent moves like removing the age limit for MediShield Life.
Mr Seah favours raising taxes on the rich - whether via income, property or luxury cars - to help the less well-off.
SMU's Prof Koh says, however, the Government should spend more effort tackling "the underlying cause of the asset-rich, cash-poor dilemma" - over-investment in property. He calls for a cap on how much CPF savings can be tied up in property.
[This is important! The problem is not simply "over-investment", it is property price inflation. And this is in part caused by the easy availability of CPF savings, which is not truly fungible. Since one of the uses of CPF savings (pre-retirement) is to purchase property, the over-abundance of CPF has led to price increases specifically in the housing market. Limit the use of CPF (for resale flats) to the equivalent value/price of new HDB flats in the area. This would curb resale flat price increases. And the "over-investment".]
Observers say greater financial literacy and education is needed. "I don't think anyone really knows how much we really need to grow old," says Ms Peh.
Friday, December 6, 2013
China's ADIZ - a brazen "Air Grab" ("Land Grab" is so passe!)
THE LANGUAGE, INTENTION, AND IMPACT OF CHINA’S ADIZ: THEFT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
Matthew Hipple
December 2, 2013
On November 23rd, the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Ministry of National Defense released the full text of a new East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ECS ADIZ). The language itself is more subtle than the actual act. The ECSADIZ is not a reflection of China’s plan or desire to identify aircraft but rather the active imposition of sovereign regulation on all aircraft entering that area: a veiled invasion of the Senkakus using subtle lawfare to justify further presence and military operation.
Fuzzy Language – Behind the Curtain:
Even though ADIZs are recognized as legal, what China has named an ADIZ is actually subtle legal language establishing a version of sovereign airspace. Some may think the ECS ADIZ is about China identifying aircraft, but it is actually a regulatory onus placed upon those entering the ADIZ that departs from accepted practice. A comparison of the exact language in the ECS ADIZ Aircraft Identification Rules (AIR) to customary practice and international law shows how China’s ECS ADIZ imposes that regulation in a way that more practically matches sovereign airspace.
Below is the quoted AIR with commentary.
“Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ must abide by these rules.”
Because the AIR does not specify specific aircraft types or operations, the AIR declares regulatory authority over all aircraft within ECS ADIZ. Signatories and non-signatories alike of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognize overflight (the freedom to transit) through exclusive economic zones (EEZ’s) without submission to regulation by coastal states. Therefore, this is a back-tracking attempt to establish norms of “sovereign airspace.” The specific rules will further illustrate how this self-appointed authority attempts to establish extensive new norms by breaching accepted practice.
“Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ must provide the following means of identification:
(1) “Flight plan identification. Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ should report the flight plans to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC or the Civil Aviation Administration of China”
The US maintains an ADIZ, but by Section 2.7.2.3 of US Navy’s Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, “(US/Canada) ADIZ regulations… apply to aircraft bound for U.S. territorial airspace and require the filing of flight plans and periodic position reports. The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace.” This is an international norm of airborne “innocent passage” the PRC does not recognize through its words, further showing that it considers the ECS ADIZ an area of sovereign, rather than international, airspace.
(2) “Radio identification. Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ must maintain the two-way radio communications, and respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries from the administrative organ of the ECSADIZ or the unit authorized by the organ.”
While the UCLOS treaty does advise aircraft to,“at all times monitor the radio frequency assigned by the competent internationally designated air traffic control authority (ATC) or the appropriate international distress radio frequency,” no such agreement exists. China’s subtle declaration of that authority by covering all transits is unilateral and objectionable. Similarly, Iran attempts queries on vessels transiting within the Strait of Hormuz (SOH) traffic separation scheme. Iran hopes ships will accept this oversight, making it “customary.” It is rather amusing to listen to Bridge-to-Bridge conversations of Iranian shore stations trying to get radio operators to use “Persian Gulf,” instead of “Gulf of Arabia.”
(3) “Transponder identification. Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ, if equipped with the secondary radar transponder, should keep the transponder working throughout the entire course.”
This will be clearly aimed at military aircraft, which will by their nature will not constantly broadcast their location and by custom are not required to abide by the concept of “due regard,” which will be discussed later. That said, I’ll at least give them that it’s not particularly offensive to ask people to identify themselves… but they’re not asking.
(4) “Logo identification. Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ must clearly mark their nationalities and the logo of their registration identification in accordance with related international treaties.”
This is innocuous, but more important here is the reference to “international treaties” as a call to authority.
“Aircraft flying in the ECSADIZ should follow the instructions of the administrative organ of the ECSADIZ or the unit authorized by the organ. China’s armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or otherwise refuse to follow the instructions.”
China states it will militarily respond to any aircraft refusing to “cooperate” in identification or refuse to follow the instructions. The concept of “due regard” as stated by the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Chicago Convention exempts state aircraft from regular compliance of civil air navigation regulations in International Airspace as long as transit was with “due regard for the safety of civil aviation.” China’s imposition of its regulations on all aircraft with the potential for response for non-compliance breaches that concept of “due regard,” which shows the ECS ADIZ is nothing than a back-door attempt at establishing sovereign airspace.
“The Ministry of National Defense of the PRC is the administrative organ of the ECS ADIZ.”
This ups the ante, since typical “show patrols” near the Senkakus are conducted by the paramilitary Chinese Coast Guard. In peacetime, as seen in the Taiwan Strait, the ability of China to passively illustrate air supremacy has improved; the PLAAF has seen great improvement in relation to its neighbors.
China points to other nations having an ADIZ, but the two major ECS ADIZ detractors it has in mind set up their ADIZs only in coordination with other countries: the US with Canada and Japan with the US. Even when done in protest, as Japan did when extending its ADIZ over RoC territory, it was not done without first consulting the RoC as to their planned actions. China’s announcement was unilateral.
Talking Points- Grand Designs:
China’s talking points deploy a top-coat of intentionally obtuse language in defense of the ADIZ to mask its more aggressive intentions. However, closer inspection of these official statements do show this cause behind the curtain.
If there is any confusion as to the intent of the ADIZ, PLAAF spokesman Shen Jinke stated that Chinese armed forces are capable of “effective control over the zone, and will take measures to deal with air threats to protect the security of the country’s airspace.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang stated of the ADIZ, “Its aims are to protect China’s state sovereignty and territorial and airspace safety.” We discussed earlier how, if applied to all aircraft as the AIR does, this equates to the establishment of sovereign airspace. Monitoring, as may happen during innocent passage, and “effective control” are very different things.
Perhaps Shen and Qin’s statements illustrate an honest desire for “defense in depth” for China’s sovereign airspace that has merely been done in an awkward and illegal way. However, Qin Gang continues on to say that China “will firmly defend the territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands.” Those two statements in context are clear enough. As in the language of the actual regulations, it is clear that this is an attempt to assume more sovereign controls, with the intent to eventually extend that claim of the sky to the sea.
In an attempt to allay fears, Qin Gang stated that the ECS ADIZ AIR “aims at no specific nation or target and will not affect the freedom of over-flight in relevant airspace.” Stating that escalatory actions apply equally to everyone isn’t particularly… calming.
More importantly, “effective control” in order to, in the words of Defense Ministry Spokesman Yang Yujun, “deal with air threats and unidentified flying objects from the sea, including identification, monitoring, control and disposition,” as well as the AIR enforced by the PLAAF, do not constitute “freedom of over-flight.” The only way the logic of the ECS ADIZ is internally consistent with law and precedent is China does not consider the ADIZ to be international airspace in which freedom of over-flight is required.
Yang Yujun does state that, “China has always respected other countries’ rights of free flight in accordance with international laws, and the establishment of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone will not change the legal nature of relevant airspace…” However, the phrase “relevant airspace” is not reassuring if, as discussed before, China still expects to execute effective regulatory control. We’ve come back to the subtle undertone that the PRC had effectively declared the ECS ADIZ as shadow sovereign airspace.
Persian Parallels- What Next?:
The Chinese ECS ADIZ is a grander scale , but far subtler, version of the 1993 “Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea” (Its excesses are well described in the State Department’s “Limits in the Seas” No.114). By the nature of its claims, it forces both parties to come into more dangerous and escalatory engagements. In the East China Sea, much of the day-to-day business may match that of the Gulf, but due to the arena of the conflict and the economic and military strength of China, the danger will be greater.
In both cases, a regionally powerful nation attempts to wrest illegal control over a large swath of territory. As coalition forces do in the Gulf when they act in legal defiance of Iranian threats or excessive regulation, the U.S. and South China Sea regional militaries need to – and will – conduct “freedom of flight” passages through the ECS ADIZ. As happens in the Gulf, China and its detractors will most likely engage in a similar martial dance of diplomacy like those happening every year in the Straits of Hormuz and its surrounding environs. The entry of China’s new carrier into the region is only the beginning.
Unfortunately, the air is not as safe as the sea. Even in episodes in which US and Soviet ships shouldered one another, ships were not destroyed and sailors were not killed. In the air, the task is not so easy, and, if encounters increase, more pilots will may die and more aircraft may be heavily damaged as in the 2001 Hainan Island Incident. That said, aircraft regularly compare plumage over the Taiwan Strait without disaster, but several decades have likely informed codes of conduct there.
A major difference with Iran is that China can use regulation on the vast body of private entities with trade interests. Namely, business entities that do not tacitly accept Chinese control of the ECS ADIZ will likely see retaliation through regulatory actions and courts once the PRC has sufficiently noticed their recalcitrance. Nippon Airlines has already publicly acquiesced to China’s regulatory oversight.
The PRC used its heft to harangue or cajole nations into ending diplomatic relations with the RoC and to kick them out of international bodies. In a similar way, the PRC is likely to push businesses using the ECS ADIZ to recognize their control of the ECS ADIZ. Regional partners such as the US that support proper channels of adjudication for the Senkaku issue should likewise support those companies that flout China’s illegal claim to control . Unfortunately, the regulatory fury of China is likely a more motivating stick than the diplomatic adulation of its opponents in this matter. Nonetheless, even if China’s heeling of airborne businesses acts as tertiary support for establishing new norms, it doesn’t solve the problem of completely justified insubordination by foreign militaries.
The ECS ADIZ increases the number of regional red-lines for Chinese military forces, and builds a political requirement for their opponents to aggressively resist their attempt at control. As discussed in my piece, How War With China Would Start: 99 Red Balloons, wars can often start because of rational escalatory responses and rules of engagement outside the meta-considerations of strategic considerations. Jackie Kennedy wrote to Khruschev, “The danger which troubled my husband was that war might be started not so much by the big men as by the little ones.” In China, the “big men” have started playing a dangerously fast-and-loose game by laying down dangerous new red lines clearly in breach of international law.
While the ECS ADIZ is a wide area and does not create the same opportunity for regular contact that exists in the Straits of Hormuz, the Chinese maneuver nonetheless heightens the need for all sides to come into further contact: China, in order to establish its new norm and not be seen to be defied, and other regional militaries, in order to press back and ensure that China’s end-around normal adjudication procedures does not slowly become customary law. China has given itself a superficial political cover – some might argue a political necessity – to increase its points of friction with other territorial claimants.
Where the status quo was sufficiently “soft” enough to allow all regional claimants to back down, China has now forced escalation on the table. One must hope China’s “big men” have sent out far wiser “little men” to patrol their new claims.
Matthew Hipple is a U.S. Navy surface warfare officer. A graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, he is Director of the NEXTWAR blog for the Center for International Maritime Security. While his opinions may not reflect those of the United States Navy, Department of Defense, or US Government, he wishes they did. Follow him on twitter:@AmericaHipple. The author thanks Jeremy Renkin for his assistance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)