Skip to main content

While China is transferring money to pension fund, our PAP wants to increase taxes.




The Ministry of Finance in China is to start transferring shares in State-Owned-Enterprises to pension fund for social security.  According to Caixin,

[A (China) Ministry of Finance document said that the move "demonstrates that state-owned companies are owned by all people and should benefit all people."]

China Daily adds that “the move will ensure the sustainable development of the country’s basic pension insurance system.” It can also improve the efficiency of SOEs.
Currently, there are more than 200 million people aged above 60 in China. And there is a shortfall in pension fund, especially in poor provinces and bankrupted state companies..

[Taxes as solutions in Singapore]

While in Singapore, the People’s Action Party government is going to increase taxes. Here are some the headlines:

Singapore to raise taxes as govt spending increases

No contradiction between PM Lee and DPM Tharman on taxes: MOF

As Singapore’s spending needs grow, raising taxes is inevitable: PM Lee


The PAP government says infrastructure investment and social spending are to increase, so do the taxes. Of course, they know how to divide social spending and Central Provident Fund which is the responsibility of individual members or family members. And so, the PAP is only helping citizens indirectly.

[Top up and transfer]

Many CPF members, especially senior citizens (they have low wages when the economy is booming), are not able to meet CPF minimum sum for retirement. Occasionally, the PAP will help to top up the MMS and Medisave.  However, most of time, they want family members to help to top-up CPF savings.

Indirectly, in case of need, mean testing is used to assess whether social welfare can be extended.

This means the country’s wealth is distributed according to PAP’s wish list.

While in China, the new policy will put money directly into the pension fund. This extra funding or top-up will provide additional money to pensioners.   
(state-owned companies are owned by all people and should benefit all people.)

[Temasek, GIC - doing right politically or financially?]

As a start, China will transfer un-listed SOE shares into pension fund. On average, the shares can generate 5% dividend which can then support the pension fund payouts.

This means if the PAP government is kind enough, some percentage of Temasek and GIC shares will go into CPF Board. These shares will generate dividends to support all, especially poor CPF members.

While we going doing the opposite. We are changing the phrase from:

(state-owned companies are owned by all people and should benefit all people.)


To:

(state-owned companies are owned by PAP all people and should benefit PAP all people.)


[Efficiency and transparency]

In an interesting and strange Financial Times report:

China rejects Singapore model for state-owned enterprise reform



FT seems to suggest Temasek model is for efficiency rather than politics: Singapore’s Temasek holds stakes in domestic and foreign companies and is known for making decisions based purely on financial considerations.

While FT claims that “Use of holding companies, a model based on that of Singaporean wealth fund Temasek, had been seen as a middle way between the privatisation of SOEs and the current system, in which top managers are approved by the Communist party and often put politics ahead of commercial considerations.”

As a Singaporean, FT is either too kind to the PAP or does not fully understand the transparency and accountability issue surrounding Temasek, GIC and Singapore reserve.

If Temasek is efficient as FT claimed, then she should report all financial information in a transparent and accountable way.

While we may laughing at Chinese SOEs which are always politics first. However, when the government is transferring SOE shares to pension fund, it means all Chinese pensioners are watching the operations of their shares in related SOEs. These “hungry” Chinese senior citizens are very different from our CPF members.

Comparing to Singapore, CPF members have no say in the operation of Temasek, GIC and our reserve. Which is the better offer?   
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...
277 comments
Read more

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...
51 comments
Read more

对话一定要有共识吗？还是求取多元性来丰富自我？

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识，尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然，行动党就会说，我国的政治将会出现分裂，新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗？文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗？如果是共识，那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识，而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路，一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗？看来，行动党对于过去，仍然依依不舍，行动党的共识，就是国家的共识，新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解，尊敬并且互相学习，吸取对方的优点，填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果，如果只是强求共识，而忽略多元性和不同的意见，甚至否定他人的意见，那么，这个共识，是否具建设性，破坏性，还是分裂性，那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见，信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见，信仰和理念都是好的，善的。但是，对方未必会欣赏，未必会接受。因此，对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见，改进自己的治国方针，然后，交给人民去决定，而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识，而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 （乐观的看，行动党的全国对话，也不过是改进自己的治国方针，通过自己的小圈圈，自我讨论，研究，更新和改良行动党的政治策略，然后，在下一次大选时，拿出来让选民决定。因此，所谓的共识，在全国人民还没有决定前，仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜，行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台，吸收更多对手的意见，不同的观点，将它们纳入自己的政治策略中，然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是，行动党没有这个雅量，也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此，它只能企图通过全国对话，硬要说这是全国共识。所以，充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略，绝对不能说是全国共识。） ‘己所不欲，忽施于人’我们不喜欢的，不要强加他人身上。同样的，我们喜欢的，也不可以强加于他人身上。例如，有些人不喜欢吃有些食物，我们却很喜欢吃这类食物，但是，我们要尊重个人的喜好，不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点，下一回提供食物时，就会通过多些选择，而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度，我们会了解马来族的要求，尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...
Post a Comment
Read more