-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Why Jamus Lim join Workers' Party ?
- Thread starter batman1
- Start date
Jamus suggests two alternatives. 
One of the unintended casualties of high land lease costs in Singapore have been our religious institutions, who often cannot afford the sort of prices commercial entities can. To cope, some have resorted to operating columbaria, childcare, coffeeshops, or carparks to raise the other big “C”—cash—that would enable them to stay in communities that they may have served for many decades.
In this brief cut for #Budget2023, I suggest two alternative approaches to land valuation that the government may consider to provide relief for our religious institutions. The government indicated that it was studying the matter, and I’m hopeful that we will arrive at a solution soon. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
1 d ·One of the unintended casualties of high land lease costs in Singapore have been our religious institutions, who often cannot afford the sort of prices commercial entities can. To cope, some have resorted to operating columbaria, childcare, coffeeshops, or carparks to raise the other big “C”—cash—that would enable them to stay in communities that they may have served for many decades.
In this brief cut for #Budget2023, I suggest two alternative approaches to land valuation that the government may consider to provide relief for our religious institutions. The government indicated that it was studying the matter, and I’m hopeful that we will arrive at a solution soon. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus was humbled to join an exceedingly distinguished panel of experts smarter and wiser than himself.
Recently, I was humbled to join and exceedingly distinguished panel of experts smarter and wiser than myself: Bert Hofman (East Asia Institute, NUS), Sung Eun Jung (Oxford Economics), and Steven Okun (among others, AmCham Asia Pacific). Bernard Aw (Coface) lent his talents to moderating the discussion, held under the auspices of the Private Markets Forum APAC, on the theme of “Private Markets Investing in a Volatile Global Environment: Macroeconomic and Geopolitical Considerations.”
The panel’s views were wide-ranging, from thoughts about the persistence of inflation (and the likely long-run path for prices and rates), transformations in international trade (the emerging narrative on regionalization vs globalization, supply chain dependency vs diversification, and shifts from efficiency toward security considerations in outsourcing decisions), and China’s recovery path (and it’s ability to uplift growth in the rest of the world).
Thanks to the organizers for setting this up, especially to Clive Harvey (Connect Group), for the invitation.
Jamus Lim
2 d ·Recently, I was humbled to join and exceedingly distinguished panel of experts smarter and wiser than myself: Bert Hofman (East Asia Institute, NUS), Sung Eun Jung (Oxford Economics), and Steven Okun (among others, AmCham Asia Pacific). Bernard Aw (Coface) lent his talents to moderating the discussion, held under the auspices of the Private Markets Forum APAC, on the theme of “Private Markets Investing in a Volatile Global Environment: Macroeconomic and Geopolitical Considerations.”
The panel’s views were wide-ranging, from thoughts about the persistence of inflation (and the likely long-run path for prices and rates), transformations in international trade (the emerging narrative on regionalization vs globalization, supply chain dependency vs diversification, and shifts from efficiency toward security considerations in outsourcing decisions), and China’s recovery path (and it’s ability to uplift growth in the rest of the world).
Thanks to the organizers for setting this up, especially to Clive Harvey (Connect Group), for the invitation.
Jamus continues house visits. 
This week’s house visits featured a doublebill, where we (almost, save one floor) wrapped up 290A #Compassvale, and made our way through the upper levels of 326B #Anchorvale. More than one resident raised concerns about how pressures from high cost of living remained a concern.
As it turns out, January’s headline inflation figures continued to edge up (to 6.6 percent compared to a year ago), and core inflation—the measure that tends to be more stable, since it strips out private transport and accommodation costs—recorded its highest rate since the global financial crisis (5.5 percent). The increase in GST has, as expected, added to this pressure.
In principle, there is a committee against profiteering, that should contain opportunistic attempts to raise prices, in the guise of the GST hike (which is after all only 1 percent, so it shouldn’t result in much higher price rises). But one has to sympathize with the committee; after all, with input costs rising everywhere, how can one successfully disentangle the two? It’s nigh well impossible, and that could explain why most folks have chosen to simply accept their lot, rather than report these increases as something nefarious.
In all fairness, there has been some relief. As I shared with our residents, #Budget2023 did include a new cash payout, along with additional GST voucher and other forms of support for utilities and conservancy payments. This is a recognition of the loss in purchasing power that has resulted from inflation, and is something that the #workersparty has argued for in Parliament. As long as Singaporeans families are hurting from high costs of living, we will continue to do so. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
11 h ·This week’s house visits featured a doublebill, where we (almost, save one floor) wrapped up 290A #Compassvale, and made our way through the upper levels of 326B #Anchorvale. More than one resident raised concerns about how pressures from high cost of living remained a concern.
As it turns out, January’s headline inflation figures continued to edge up (to 6.6 percent compared to a year ago), and core inflation—the measure that tends to be more stable, since it strips out private transport and accommodation costs—recorded its highest rate since the global financial crisis (5.5 percent). The increase in GST has, as expected, added to this pressure.
In principle, there is a committee against profiteering, that should contain opportunistic attempts to raise prices, in the guise of the GST hike (which is after all only 1 percent, so it shouldn’t result in much higher price rises). But one has to sympathize with the committee; after all, with input costs rising everywhere, how can one successfully disentangle the two? It’s nigh well impossible, and that could explain why most folks have chosen to simply accept their lot, rather than report these increases as something nefarious.
In all fairness, there has been some relief. As I shared with our residents, #Budget2023 did include a new cash payout, along with additional GST voucher and other forms of support for utilities and conservancy payments. This is a recognition of the loss in purchasing power that has resulted from inflation, and is something that the #workersparty has argued for in Parliament. As long as Singaporeans families are hurting from high costs of living, we will continue to do so. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus is concerned about primary six students. 
Is a high-stakes test at the end of Primary 6—which could instill in a 12-year old that sense of make-or-break at a tender age—justified? Is it a building block that can imbue an early sense of accomplishment and independence, or is more a stumbling block for their self-confidence?
People might have differing views on this matter, but most would probably agree that it really depends on the child. Some kids progress rapidly and assertively, but while others may take longer to get there, they could well be late bloomers that find their stride later on (recall the parable of the tortoise and the hare).
The #workersparty believes that an optional through-train route—which allows kids/parents to opt into a 10-year pathway with a major exam only at the end of that period—offers greater flexibility for families who want to hold off on high-stakes testing, for whatever reason. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
1 d ·Is a high-stakes test at the end of Primary 6—which could instill in a 12-year old that sense of make-or-break at a tender age—justified? Is it a building block that can imbue an early sense of accomplishment and independence, or is more a stumbling block for their self-confidence?
People might have differing views on this matter, but most would probably agree that it really depends on the child. Some kids progress rapidly and assertively, but while others may take longer to get there, they could well be late bloomers that find their stride later on (recall the parable of the tortoise and the hare).
The #workersparty believes that an optional through-train route—which allows kids/parents to opt into a 10-year pathway with a major exam only at the end of that period—offers greater flexibility for families who want to hold off on high-stakes testing, for whatever reason. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus joined Roshan Gidwani (PYTCH Media) in their #TeatimeTuesday segment.
Recently, I joined Roshan Gidwani (PYTCH Media) in their #TeatimeTuesday segment, which is an initiative of PhillipCapital that aims to connect with millennials in their financial and investment journeys. We spoke about #Budget2023, but explicitly from the perspective of what it would mean for those who are relatively younger. I offered my views of housing and saving, the jobs landscape and career aspirations, and how to structure one’s investment portfolio.
Thanks to the team for the invitation, and the very professional setup and production! The full interview is available here, for those who may be keen:
Jamus Lim
4 d ·Recently, I joined Roshan Gidwani (PYTCH Media) in their #TeatimeTuesday segment, which is an initiative of PhillipCapital that aims to connect with millennials in their financial and investment journeys. We spoke about #Budget2023, but explicitly from the perspective of what it would mean for those who are relatively younger. I offered my views of housing and saving, the jobs landscape and career aspirations, and how to structure one’s investment portfolio.
Thanks to the team for the invitation, and the very professional setup and production! The full interview is available here, for those who may be keen:
Jamus has 2 additional thoughts.
In response to the #workersparty proposal for the Ministry of Education to consider an optional through-train program from primary through secondary schools, Minister Chan raised a number of potential concerns with the idea. I’ll let folks decide for themselves if they find these objections convincing. I would only add two additional thoughts: nothing he said precludes a trial, with a less “popular” school, to see if the issues he raises are really dealbreakers for parents; and a high-stakes exam administered at the still-tender age of 12 (the PSLE) is actually quite an anomaly, worldwide. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
13 h ·In response to the #workersparty proposal for the Ministry of Education to consider an optional through-train program from primary through secondary schools, Minister Chan raised a number of potential concerns with the idea. I’ll let folks decide for themselves if they find these objections convincing. I would only add two additional thoughts: nothing he said precludes a trial, with a less “popular” school, to see if the issues he raises are really dealbreakers for parents; and a high-stakes exam administered at the still-tender age of 12 (the PSLE) is actually quite an anomaly, worldwide. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus is concerned about economic growth.
#Budget2023 debates are about to wrap up in Parliament. Much of the commentary has focused on novel proposals, such as the increase in the CPF ceiling, additional grants for HDB resale, changes to working mothers support. While I had some thoughts about some of these issues (which I shared as well in my speech), much of my budget response focused on the policies proposed that would keep our economy robust in the longer run. These have to do with productivity, labor, and capital.
Singapore’s productivity has languished for a long time. Diagnosing a singular cause of this is hard, but what we can say is that it’s a problem that has been recognized for a long time, but after much study and money and many government agencies later, we remain stuck. The budget’s latest effort is to inject yet more money into a productivity fund, and to an SME coinvestment fund. Public funding for R&D isn’t necessarily bad, but the issue doesn’t seem to be insufficient public spending on innovation. It’s that the private sector—for whatever reason—lags in its R&D expenditures. My sense is that the “D” part of R&D remains underdeveloped (no pun intended), and gaps exist in translating research ideas into marketable products.
Part of this is the need to foster more risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which would be easier if grant money wasn’t always accompanied by annual KPI requirements that tend to create incentives for safer, incremental advances. We want the state to have a share of the upside, without crimping risk-taking too early. To the extent that government gets involved, it could mainly be as a convener. It can host regular sessions and meetups where mature and upstart companies can interact, learn from each other, share ideas, and network. Have officers matchmake. Play the role of Y Combinator.
There are already a number of such efforts, including by Temasek and EDBI. I’ve been told that funding, per se, isn’t the problem; it’s more where it’s being directed to, and the sorts of expectations that accompany taking the cash. In certain areas—where public research institutions like A*Star or our universities a need to be more involved—adopt a public-private partnership (PPP) model. This is especially in biopharma or ICT, where upstream research is more critical.
Related to risk taking is the need for a more durable cushion, should such endeavors fail. That’s where some form of redundancy insurance comes in, as a safety net for involuntary job loss or entrepreneurial failure. There’s actually an interesting analogy between the difficulties faced by folks that have been repeatedly unsuccessful in securing a job, and those who have been made freshly unemployed: you never think it’s gonna happen to you. That’s why insurance, in such instances, is so critical; you don’t need it most of the time, but when you do, you really really need it. And just as redundancy insurance can offer the cash buffer to tide you through till you land on your feet again.
Folks that worry about policy tend to think that such schemes may create perverse incentives to remain unemployed. Setting aside how most people don’t usually want to be dependent on others for a living, it’s still a fair issue to ponder. As it turns out, it’s also not a novel problem. Economists that study this stuff suggest two key mechanisms: keep the payout period brief, but don’t be stingy about the amount of support rendered.
The #workersparty redundancy insurance proposal (broadly) checks these two boxes: our suggested duration of 6 months is about half that common to other countries, while the payout of 40 percent of last drawn salary is pretty decent (it’s almost the same as support the government gave for sectors directly affected by COVID-19, and is above the 25 percent floor everyone got back then. It’s on the conservative side, but we are open to increases contingent on fiscal sustainability and social consensus).
The bulk of the funding would be premia, deducted from wages. At $4-$5 a month, it won’t be onerous, but is nevertheless a strong endorsement of workers taking care of one another. The remainder would be cofunded with government seed capital. If this premium sounds impossibly low, keep in mind the modest payout amounts, how this only covers redundancy (not all unemployment), and the fact that our redundancy rates tend to be quite low, compared to elsewhere.
Finally, what about capital? Like many who have observed that our low labor share of income remains an anomaly for advanced economies, we believe that there is more scope for capital taxation, especially for multinationals (MNCs). Part of this will likely be automatic; we are a signatory of the BEPS treaty, which sets a global minimum capital tax rate for large MNCs, of 15 percent. For now, government has declined to offer much detail on how they will implement BEPS here.
So we are left to make a case in terms of principles. We believe that all MNCs should be treated equally in terms of the corporate tax rate (that’s a big part of what the deal helps countries commit to: avoiding a race to the bottom). We also believe that SMEs should face a substantially lower effective tax burden. Depending on one’s calculations, this isn’t always the case today. This will create a better environment for our local firms to grow and flourish.
Like good food, economic growth is about all the ingredients working together to produce something that is better than just the sum of its parts. Our proposals on labor, capital, and productivity will move us in that direction. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
5 d ·#Budget2023 debates are about to wrap up in Parliament. Much of the commentary has focused on novel proposals, such as the increase in the CPF ceiling, additional grants for HDB resale, changes to working mothers support. While I had some thoughts about some of these issues (which I shared as well in my speech), much of my budget response focused on the policies proposed that would keep our economy robust in the longer run. These have to do with productivity, labor, and capital.
Singapore’s productivity has languished for a long time. Diagnosing a singular cause of this is hard, but what we can say is that it’s a problem that has been recognized for a long time, but after much study and money and many government agencies later, we remain stuck. The budget’s latest effort is to inject yet more money into a productivity fund, and to an SME coinvestment fund. Public funding for R&D isn’t necessarily bad, but the issue doesn’t seem to be insufficient public spending on innovation. It’s that the private sector—for whatever reason—lags in its R&D expenditures. My sense is that the “D” part of R&D remains underdeveloped (no pun intended), and gaps exist in translating research ideas into marketable products.
Part of this is the need to foster more risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which would be easier if grant money wasn’t always accompanied by annual KPI requirements that tend to create incentives for safer, incremental advances. We want the state to have a share of the upside, without crimping risk-taking too early. To the extent that government gets involved, it could mainly be as a convener. It can host regular sessions and meetups where mature and upstart companies can interact, learn from each other, share ideas, and network. Have officers matchmake. Play the role of Y Combinator.
There are already a number of such efforts, including by Temasek and EDBI. I’ve been told that funding, per se, isn’t the problem; it’s more where it’s being directed to, and the sorts of expectations that accompany taking the cash. In certain areas—where public research institutions like A*Star or our universities a need to be more involved—adopt a public-private partnership (PPP) model. This is especially in biopharma or ICT, where upstream research is more critical.
Related to risk taking is the need for a more durable cushion, should such endeavors fail. That’s where some form of redundancy insurance comes in, as a safety net for involuntary job loss or entrepreneurial failure. There’s actually an interesting analogy between the difficulties faced by folks that have been repeatedly unsuccessful in securing a job, and those who have been made freshly unemployed: you never think it’s gonna happen to you. That’s why insurance, in such instances, is so critical; you don’t need it most of the time, but when you do, you really really need it. And just as redundancy insurance can offer the cash buffer to tide you through till you land on your feet again.
Folks that worry about policy tend to think that such schemes may create perverse incentives to remain unemployed. Setting aside how most people don’t usually want to be dependent on others for a living, it’s still a fair issue to ponder. As it turns out, it’s also not a novel problem. Economists that study this stuff suggest two key mechanisms: keep the payout period brief, but don’t be stingy about the amount of support rendered.
The #workersparty redundancy insurance proposal (broadly) checks these two boxes: our suggested duration of 6 months is about half that common to other countries, while the payout of 40 percent of last drawn salary is pretty decent (it’s almost the same as support the government gave for sectors directly affected by COVID-19, and is above the 25 percent floor everyone got back then. It’s on the conservative side, but we are open to increases contingent on fiscal sustainability and social consensus).
The bulk of the funding would be premia, deducted from wages. At $4-$5 a month, it won’t be onerous, but is nevertheless a strong endorsement of workers taking care of one another. The remainder would be cofunded with government seed capital. If this premium sounds impossibly low, keep in mind the modest payout amounts, how this only covers redundancy (not all unemployment), and the fact that our redundancy rates tend to be quite low, compared to elsewhere.
Finally, what about capital? Like many who have observed that our low labor share of income remains an anomaly for advanced economies, we believe that there is more scope for capital taxation, especially for multinationals (MNCs). Part of this will likely be automatic; we are a signatory of the BEPS treaty, which sets a global minimum capital tax rate for large MNCs, of 15 percent. For now, government has declined to offer much detail on how they will implement BEPS here.
So we are left to make a case in terms of principles. We believe that all MNCs should be treated equally in terms of the corporate tax rate (that’s a big part of what the deal helps countries commit to: avoiding a race to the bottom). We also believe that SMEs should face a substantially lower effective tax burden. Depending on one’s calculations, this isn’t always the case today. This will create a better environment for our local firms to grow and flourish.
Like good food, economic growth is about all the ingredients working together to produce something that is better than just the sum of its parts. Our proposals on labor, capital, and productivity will move us in that direction. #makingyourvotecount
