singapore media

I don’t read newspapers regularly for lack of time. However, I did come across this one about Dr Allan Ooi’s suicide after being AWOL for many months and speculation around gaming influence.

From wayangparty.com:

Dr Allan Ooi’s full farewell letter.

News article by Sin Ming Daily.

I hope you see the difference between the original message and what was implied from the article.

As much as I know how un-independent the local media is, I’m feeling quite frustrated at how readers are not presented with an unbiased report. I shall just scream in silence because there’s no point in commenting about this.

Let’s just say (again?) I’m glad to have alternative sources of news from the Internet. And I hope the majority of citizens are not trusting our news reports hook, line and sinker.

Budget Debate 2009 – Day 1 (NMP Siew Kum Hong)

Let’s also hear it from NMP Siew Kum Hong:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

originally linked from Siew Kum Hong’s blog (speech transcript here)

Budget Debate 2009 – Day 1 (MP Low Thia Khiang)

I believe MP Low Thia Khiang from Workers’ Party speaks out the thoughts of many people:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

originaly linked from theonlinecitizen

Another point of discussion that irks me is why do they always talk about Jobs Credit and 9% CPF cuts as if it must be one or the other?! I think we all understand the implications of cutting CPF contributions; the point is that, are there any other better alternatives that could have been in Budget 2009? Or even a better implementation of the Jobs Credit?

Jobs Credit part 2

For lack of a better adjective, stupid is the word in my mind when I think of Jobs Credit.

Yesterday, there was a report on The Straits Times on the evolvement of this novel scheme. Ok, I do give it to them that it is indeed novel.

On why it was 12%, Mr Poon Hong Yuen, Ministry of Finance’s director of Budget 2009, said they needed a number that’s impactful and able to make a difference in retrenchment or hiring decision and that 12% was “almost as high as we could go in terms of affordability”. So really, is it based on affordability or its effects? Probably it’s a balance between the 2 factors. But I missed any kind of concrete explanation in his words. Sorry, why is it 12% again?

On the 4.5billion-dollar question of how many jobs the scheme would save, he said “It’s quite difficult to work out. … We think it will provide some relief and therefore will make some difference, …” That means we are spending $4.5b on a scheme whose benefits are unknown; let’s hope their thoughts come true. I think that for those who are employed, they would all still be at potential risk of retrenchment or wage cuts because fundamentally, businesses are affected by the global economy climate. Would any business approve a large sum of budget on something whose positive effects cannot be projected?

Mr Poon also said that the scheme could have taken a more targeted approach, except that it would have been difficult to implement. A rather thoughtless implementation isn’t it?

I just feel quite frustrated about this scheme (although I am somewhat amused and entertained by some of the satirical posts that were blogged on it). I understand that handing money to people is not the solution and there’s a need to help businesses, to save jobs, to create jobs, to improve the economy, but surely you can think of a better scheme?

Someone said to me that people who criticise  should maybe keep quiet if they don’t have an alternative suggestion. Now, we are not the ones who are being highly employed by the Government to think and make such decisions.  I think everyone has the right to criticise or comment and it’s up to you to agree/disagree with them.

Finally, how much of it goes back to the Government since they are also employers? Thus, the actual amount spent is definitely less than $4.5b.

Let’s see what else comes up.

budget here, budget there

Lots of buzz and discussion about the Budget 2009. I’m didn’t have much thoughts on the possible initiatives to be introduced in the first place so I wasn’t sure what to expect but I do have some comments on the initiatives.

This article at The Online Citizen is one whose sentiments I share. I doubt the 12% Job Credits will be an incentive for employers to retain their employees. My simple line of thought is that if an employee is asked to leave, one saves 100%. It will be at most an additional benefit to employers and while it can result in substantial savings on an enterprise-level, it will not serve its original purpose. I’m also wondering why it is “12%” – maybe it’s a figure derived from much research, and somehow this 12% really does make a difference to an employer?

I’m happy with the doubled GST Credits, just as any man-on-the-street would; it’s direct cash and nothing more. I do wonder how much it helps for lower-income group. For us, it is an extra sum of money and we can be contented with it; but for the needy, does it provide substantial relief?

The personal income tax rebate of 20%, capped at $2000, is somewhat puzzling to me. If someone has to pay around $2000 for tax, it means he/she is earning a lot right?! Shouldn’t the income tax rebate be staggered such that the lower income will benefit more?