- Joined
- Mar 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,160
- Points
- 0
Dr Vivian expressed worries at “entitlement mentality” of Singaporeans
April 3, 2010 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Indulging in shameless self-praise and self-aggrandizement is becoming a favorite past-time of Singapore’s multi-millionaire ministers these days.
Coming right after Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan became the latest PAP minister to wax lyrical about its manifold ”accomplishments”.
In a recent speech at his alma mater NUS, Dr Vivian heaped generous praises on the PAP’s CPF scheme as a “sustainable” system which ensures sufficient retirement funds for Singaporeans as they grow old.
He also took a pot shot at other systems which pay the holders as they go along unlike the CPF which holds the savings of its members ransom till they reach 62 years of age:
“It (CPF) is a fully funded, defined contribution scheme. This is based on the important principle that every generation has to earn and save enough for itself. This is the only way to ensure the future sustainability of the scheme. All ‘pay as you go’ systems will sooner or later either go bankrupt or will saddle future generations with unsustainable levels of taxation,” he added.
Dr Vivian criticized such schemes as “political Ponzi schemes”. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned.
“There have been some academic papers published that argue ‘pay as you go’ defined benefit schemes will provide better protection against inflation and are more redistributive in nature. Let me be very blunt about such arguments: I think these are political polemics. When we start off with a young society, the inflow of funds will exceed the outflow in a ‘pay as you go’ system. But with an ageing population, these political Ponzi schemes will run out of money, and the fiscal pressures will eventually become unsustainable.”
He claimed that many countries are “learning” from Singapore and are moving towards a scheme which resembles CPF:
“Many countries curtailing pension benefits are in fact trying to move towards a scheme that resembles ours: a defined contribution plan. Yet we still get calls from Singaporeans for the Government to introduce old age pension benefits for all senior citizens.”
He expressed concerns that there may be increasing demands on the government to use more of its reserves to care for Singaporeans:
“It always starts like this: the Government is rich; we can afford to carve out a small percentage of our gross domestic product or utilise a small percentage of our reserves. This is the beginning of a slippery slope. The moment you have a government that embarks on such a course, you better start worrying about the future. We are worried about an entitlement mentality. Today, people know that the primary responsibility to provide for their lives falls on themselves; and secondly, their families.”
Though Singapore is the second richest nation in Asia after Japan in terms of GDP per capita income, Singaporeans enjoy few social welfare benefits from the PAP which has always eschewed “welfarism” in preference for “self-reliance”.
While the cash-flushed state is able to lose billions of dollars of national reserves via its two sovereign wealth funds to bail out ailing U.S. and European banks, it balks at providing more aid to needy and poor Singaporeans.
When asked by MP Lily Neo in 2007 to increase the monthly Public Assistance allowance so that its recipients can have three basic meals a day, Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan retorted:
“How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”
He added that “one limiting factor must be the sum that we give through public assistance cannot be so generous as to erode the work ethic.”
[Source: Channel News Asia, 9 March 2007]
The Straits Times reported of late that there were only 11 successful PA applicants between July 2008 and Deccember 2009. MCYS said that the low numbers showed that Singaporeans want to be as “self-reliant” as much as possible.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan earns nearly $2 million dollars a year, or more than 4 times the annual salary of U.S. President Barack Obama. He had already earned a few thousand dollars in his pocket by making this speech at NUS.
April 3, 2010 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Indulging in shameless self-praise and self-aggrandizement is becoming a favorite past-time of Singapore’s multi-millionaire ministers these days.
Coming right after Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan became the latest PAP minister to wax lyrical about its manifold ”accomplishments”.
In a recent speech at his alma mater NUS, Dr Vivian heaped generous praises on the PAP’s CPF scheme as a “sustainable” system which ensures sufficient retirement funds for Singaporeans as they grow old.
He also took a pot shot at other systems which pay the holders as they go along unlike the CPF which holds the savings of its members ransom till they reach 62 years of age:
“It (CPF) is a fully funded, defined contribution scheme. This is based on the important principle that every generation has to earn and save enough for itself. This is the only way to ensure the future sustainability of the scheme. All ‘pay as you go’ systems will sooner or later either go bankrupt or will saddle future generations with unsustainable levels of taxation,” he added.
Dr Vivian criticized such schemes as “political Ponzi schemes”. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned.
“There have been some academic papers published that argue ‘pay as you go’ defined benefit schemes will provide better protection against inflation and are more redistributive in nature. Let me be very blunt about such arguments: I think these are political polemics. When we start off with a young society, the inflow of funds will exceed the outflow in a ‘pay as you go’ system. But with an ageing population, these political Ponzi schemes will run out of money, and the fiscal pressures will eventually become unsustainable.”
He claimed that many countries are “learning” from Singapore and are moving towards a scheme which resembles CPF:
“Many countries curtailing pension benefits are in fact trying to move towards a scheme that resembles ours: a defined contribution plan. Yet we still get calls from Singaporeans for the Government to introduce old age pension benefits for all senior citizens.”
He expressed concerns that there may be increasing demands on the government to use more of its reserves to care for Singaporeans:
“It always starts like this: the Government is rich; we can afford to carve out a small percentage of our gross domestic product or utilise a small percentage of our reserves. This is the beginning of a slippery slope. The moment you have a government that embarks on such a course, you better start worrying about the future. We are worried about an entitlement mentality. Today, people know that the primary responsibility to provide for their lives falls on themselves; and secondly, their families.”
Though Singapore is the second richest nation in Asia after Japan in terms of GDP per capita income, Singaporeans enjoy few social welfare benefits from the PAP which has always eschewed “welfarism” in preference for “self-reliance”.
While the cash-flushed state is able to lose billions of dollars of national reserves via its two sovereign wealth funds to bail out ailing U.S. and European banks, it balks at providing more aid to needy and poor Singaporeans.
When asked by MP Lily Neo in 2007 to increase the monthly Public Assistance allowance so that its recipients can have three basic meals a day, Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan retorted:
“How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”
He added that “one limiting factor must be the sum that we give through public assistance cannot be so generous as to erode the work ethic.”
[Source: Channel News Asia, 9 March 2007]
The Straits Times reported of late that there were only 11 successful PA applicants between July 2008 and Deccember 2009. MCYS said that the low numbers showed that Singaporeans want to be as “self-reliant” as much as possible.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan earns nearly $2 million dollars a year, or more than 4 times the annual salary of U.S. President Barack Obama. He had already earned a few thousand dollars in his pocket by making this speech at NUS.
