More than 80 percent want to see Tharman as Singapore’s next PM

[RPK]

http://theindependent.sg/more-than-80-percent-want-to-see-tharman-as-singapores-next-pm/

We asked our readers on Sunday (4 Sep) who should be the next Prime Minister of Singapore. As at 12pm today (6 Sep), we have had 2,316 responses to the poll – and most (1882 votes) voted for Tharman Shanmugaratnam to lead Singapore into the future.

Born in 1957, Mr Shanmugaratnam is 5 years younger than Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and just four years older than the person who got the next most number of votes in our poll (288 votes), Heng Swee Keat.

Mr Tharman who is currently the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, has contested four General Elections since 2001, and is hugely popular among many Singaporeans. Jurong GRC, which was led by the Deputy PM, enjoyed the biggest win in the last General Election.

Mr Shanmugaratnam had previously said that it is only a matter of time before Singapore gets a non-Chinese prime minister. He said, “it seems to me inevitable that at some point, a minority prime minister – Indian, Malay, Eurasian, or some mixture – is going to be a feature of the political landscape. We’ve got a meritocracy, it is an open system.”

But he also indicated that he himself does not prefer to be the Prime Minister, unless he has no choice.

“Let me put it this way, we all have our preferences. And I was always, in sports, a centre half rather than centre forward. I enjoy playing half back and making long passes, but I am not the striker. Unless O am forced to be, I don’t think I will be forced to it, because I think we have got choices.” – Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam

Besides his own unwillingness, Tharman may have other hurdles to cross to be the Prime Minister of Singapore as per the wish of many Singaporeans.

In the 1980s, Singapore’s first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew said that he had considered then-Minister for National Development, S Dhanabalan, to be the Prime Minister of Singapore, but decided that the country was not ready for an Indian head of government.

Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong too echoed his father’s views in 2008, shortly after Barack Obama was voted in as the first black president of the United States of America:

“Will it happen soon? I don’t think so, because you have to win votes. And these sentiments – who votes for whom, and what makes him identify with that person – these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time, even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it.” – Lee Hsien Loong

The younger Lee though has softened his stance in recent times, acknowledging that the younger generations are more accepting of a non-Chinese Prime Minister – although he still notes the need to communicate with voters in Mandarin.

If Mr Tharman is to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore, he may have to face other hurdles besides those of his own preferences, race and language.

The People’s Action Party (PAP) Chairman, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, in taking the former editor of The Straits Times to task for suggesting that the ruling party chooses its top leader in an opaque manner, said that “the next prime minister will be chosen by the next generation of leaders from among themselves.”

“Older ministers, including the current PM, will stay out of the deliberations,” he added.

It is unclear if the PAP will consider Mr Shanmugaratnam as being among the ‘older Ministers’ and not include him in the party’s deliberation as to who should lead Singapore into the future.

 

[Indrajit]

“Will it happen soon? I don’t think so, because you have to win votes. And these sentiments – who votes for whom, and what makes him identify with that person – these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time, even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it.” – Lee Hsien Loong


True that. True of Singapore & true of most countries around the world, America being no exception. Barrack Obama was an aberration (though contrary to the commonly held view, he's not the first black President, only the first President who is half white, half black), a substantial number in the U.S. sees it exactly that way, just as the Vritish do & as the continental Europeans do. What gets publicly said is not necessarily what is felt.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Thread locked temporarily for checking.


Edit: Now re-open for posting, please carry on, honest personal opinons are allowed, but no direct insult or abuse on any ethnicity. No more open pre-warning from me on this thread, thanks!

 

[Mista]

Theindependent is an unreliable source in Singapore by the way.

But Tharman is indeed capable and well-liked.

In March 2011, Tharman was appointed the Chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee, the policy steering committee of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He was also admitted to the Group of Thirty (an international consultative group made up of 30 leading financiers and academics) in June 2008.

Quite an achievement for someone from a small country.

I like his speech during the elections where he present facts and figures in a calm, transparent and objective manner to convince voters of the government's policies and position. This is how a democracy should be; discuss things openly, calmly and tell people the truth of the benefits and costs, and win by the quality of ideas. Not the politics of contention practiced in the US and Taiwan, where candidates insult and defame each other, throw populist policies and empty promises.

Spoiler: Some extract from his speech in the last General Election

So, what did he say in his 27 minute speech? It’s definitely worth taking the half hour out to watch, but here’s a quick summary:

1. He said that the middle-income group will bear the tax burden if the government was to implement the opposition schemes:

“I’ve been studying this for years. Whole set of countries around the world. You cannot do it by just taxing the top 1%. That is a bluff. First of all because the top 1% know how to move their money around, but second because you can’t just jack up the tax rate to a very high level for the top 1%, without having a change in your taxes for the top 5% and the top 10%. And there’s no country in the world that has provided something for everyone without raising middle-income taxes. GST, Income tax. That’s the way it is done. In France, in Germany, in Scandinavia, in the United Kingdom. That’s the way it is done. The middle class pays very high taxes in order that everyone get something.”

2. He analysed Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s plans and explained cogently why their plans will be very “siong” for the average Singaporean. How siong? $850 in taxes per month for someone earning $3,800.

– He takes the example of France, (which the Singapore Democratic Party mentioned in their speech advocating their universal healthcare system proposal) noting that the average French income earner pays 15 per cent in income tax, 20 per cent in VAT (their equivalent to GST in Singapore) and a further 21.5 per cent in payroll tax, which goes toward their healthcare subsidies:

“So if you imagine it in the Singapore context, our average, our median worker, someone right in the middle of the income ladder earns about $3,800. If you have that same French tax rate here, it means every month he or she will be paying the government $850. Just on income tax and VAT or GST. And this doesn’t count yet the payment for what they call payroll taxes, which is an important source of funding for the French healthcare system. Payroll taxes which ultimately comes out of the workers’ wages, whether the employer is paying or the employee is paying. It’s ultimately coming out of workers’ wages. You have a 21.5% payroll tax, and out of that, they also fund healthcare subsidies. Income tax, VAT, Payroll tax.

When you add it together, the average worker — I’m not talking about the rich — the average worker has to take a whopping amount out of their monthly pay to give to the government (Singapore, by the way, pays close to zero for the middle income).”

3. Tharman didn’t have to, but he addressed a point some parties raised about using the investment incomes from our reserves to fund these increased expenditures, saying our investment income from reserves is close to being maxed out.

“It is also a myth to think… look, let’s not worry about taxing people, let’s talk about taking investment income from reserves, and several parties I noticed have mentioned this.

Well let me just say this. We are already maxing out on the investment income from our reserves. The constitution allows us to spend 50% of the income on our reserves and we are already maxing out, we are spending it fully, on our increased social spending, on healthcare, on infrastructure. It’s fully used. There’s no more money left there that you can just take without compromising the next generation.

And it’s not as if we’re storing up a whole lot of savings for the future generation to have a better life than today. All we are doing is making sure that each generation gets the same benefit, each generation gets the same benefit. We changed the constitution this year to take more of the returns earned by Temasek (Holdings) for spending on our budget. We increased income taxes on the rich and in the last few years we’ve increased property taxes on high-end properties while lowering property taxes for our smaller HDB taxes, we made it more progressive.

But when you add it all up together, we have taken measures that will give us $4 billion a year over the next five years. Including Temasek in our framework for spending, raising income tax, raising property tax, we have done it in advance, no bluff no pretence. We made very clear we have extra spending needs especially in healthcare, where we are more than doubling our healthcare spending — we need the revenues, we’ve taken the measures up front.”

4. DPM Tharman acknowledged that the government’s previous thinking about meritocracy wasn’t right.

“We used to think sometime in the past that how well people do depends on what they’re born with or how well they do in education early in life. That’s not true.

There’s so much to be developed during your life. You may start off weak but you can develop your strengths through life. We are going to make it possible for every Singaporean through education, through expanding of our ITEs, polys and universities, and through SkillsFuture, we are going to make it possible for everyone to keep developing through life because everyone has a talent, everyone has a strength.

Not all of us realise it when we’re young, but we can develop it over time, while we are at work, outside work, in the community, every way in which we can keep learning, discovering our strengths and our interest. Everyone has a talent that is useful to our society.”

5. He also said that it is “not a perfect government” and “there’s more to do”:

We have more to do. We are not a perfect country, we are not a perfect government, there’s more to do. And we are quite straight about it, we are quite honest about it. What the problems are, what the challenges are, sometimes even with policies that have worked well, there are new challenges because the environment changes. The economic environment changes, our society changes.

Things get more difficult over time and new challenges crop up and we are quite straight about it. We’re quite straight about the possible solutions and we are never sure whether they are going to work. But we are quite straight that look, these are possible solutions and let’s work hard on them.

6. And the only time he seems to have made any inclination of disparagement to the Workers’ Party (which the crowd did pick up on), is this:

And we are straight about how we are going to fund our solutions. Where do we get the money from? That’s what good government is about, and that’s what good politics is about. Never pretending we are perfect, being straight about the solutions, being honest about the challenges, and telling everyone up front, telling everyone up front where the money is coming from. Who’s going to pay, who’s going to benefit.


Okay, that wasn’t entirely a “summary”. But trust us, and we’re saying this completely objectively, that Tharman’s speech is worth watching in its entirety.

(I mean come on, he spoke some Chinese words way better than many of us can claim to! See the 24-minute mark, for instance.)

Watch the whole thing here:

http://mothership.sg/2015/09/dpm-th...nly-reason-why-people-still-have-hope-in-pap/

 

[Mista]

No way to ‘give something to everyone’ without raising taxes for middle class: Tharman

SINGAPORE: With opposition parties presenting proposals galore ranging from free health care to handouts and a minimum wage, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam took to the rally stage on Saturday (Sep 5) night urging Singaporeans to “see through” such “false promises”.

“There is no country in the world that has been able to provide something for everyone without raising taxes for the middle-income group – not France, not Germany, not the UK,” said Mr Tharman, who is also the Minister for Finance.

“The middle class pays very high taxes in order that everyone gets something. It’s a very expensive system for the middle class - not just for the rich.”

Alluding to the Workers’ Party’s proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest group, Mr Tharman said: “I’ve been studying it for years. You can’t do it by just taxing the top 1 per cent. That’s a bluff. First, because the top 1 per cent know how to move money around the world.

“But secondly, you can’t jack up the tax rate for the top 1 per cent without affecting the next 5 or 10 per cent.”

Mr Tharman, who was speaking at a People’s Action Party rally held at Petir Road in Bukit Panjang, said the Government took “very seriously” the concerns of social mobility, workforce inequality and the elderly who need support. It has worked to address these issues, and is continuing to do more.

“But let me make this very clear - we are doing it in a way that is fair, where the rich pay more and the poor get more. We’re doing it in a way that is fair, because we’re not pushing the burden to the next generation, to our children and grandchildren. That is what fairness is about,” said the candidate for Jurong Group Representation Constituency.

THE MYTH OF EGALITARIAN ‘FREE’ SYSTEMS

Mr Tharman pointed out that in France, the average worker pays “well over 20 per cent” of his or her income to the government, in the form of income tax and a value-added tax.

It would be the equivalent of a median worker in Singapore, who earns about S$3,800 a month, paying S$850 in income tax and goods and services tax (GST), he said.

“So, when you think of free healthcare and free social services, you must realise it is not free. The average citizen is paying for it big time in these countries… because everybody, including the rich, is benefitting,” he added. “It is a complete myth to think they are egalitarian systems.”

In Singapore, for every S$1 that a middle-income family pays in tax in one form or another, they get back S$2 in subsidies – such as for education, healthcare and in retirement.

Compare that to Finland, said Mr Tharman, where for every $1 the middle-income group pays, they get back $1.30.

As for the bottom 10 per cent in Singapore, they get back S$6 in subsidies for every S$1 of tax – mainly GST – that they pay, he added. The top 10 per cent, meanwhile, get back 20 cents for every S$1 paid. “That’s what I call a fair system,” he said.

THE MYTH OF TAKING FROM INVESTMENT RESERVES

To ensure that a heavy burden is not placed on the middle-income group, Mr Tharman said the way was to keep income taxes “low or close to zero” for them and to “try as far as possible to keep GST low in years to come”.

But he called it a “myth” to think it was possible to draw more money from the investment reserves.

“We are already maxing out on our investment income from the reserves. The Constitution allows us to spend 50 per cent of income from reserves,” said Mr Tharman. This has gone to increased spending on social programmes, health care and infrastructure. “There is no more money left that can be taken out without compromising the next generation.”

In fact, he noted, the Constitution was changed this year so that more of the returns earned by Temasek could be taken out for spending on the Budget.

Mr Tharman also lambasted as “scaremongering” some opposition claims that the PAP would raise GST after the elections. “That is just cheap,” he said. “We have been upfront and I said in this year’s Budget very clearly, we have raised the revenues we need for the next five years.”

Measures taken, such as increased income taxes on the rich and a hike on higher-end property taxes, will give the Government S$4 billion a year over the next five years, he reiterated.

HELPING EVERYONE DEVELOP THROUGH LIFE

Beyond redistributing resources, Mr Tharman also emphasised the need to open up new opportunities for all Singaporeans, “no matter where you start from”, to maximise their talents.

At the primary school level, 50 per cent more is being spent on weak learners compared to the average child.

“We used to think, in the past, that how well people did depended on what they’re born with or what they do in education early in life. That’s not true,” he said.

“You may start off weak but you can develop your strengths through life. We’re going to be making it possible for every Singaporean, through education, expanding the ITEs and polytechnics, and through SkillsFuture, to keep developing through life.

“We must make that possible in Singapore, in a way that no country has achieved,” he added.

“Maximise opportunities, have a fair system, a fair deal for the middle class – that’s our new path.

"And I feel proud to say we start on this new path from a position of strength, not weakness unlike so many countries - because our pioneer generation saved up with they were young, our subsequent generations kept the same ethic of working hard and putting something aside, and future generations will now benefit,” said Mr Tharman.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news.../latest/no-way-to-give-something/2105026.html

SDP spreading fear, alarm with populist politics, says Tharman

SINGAPORE — Taking issue with the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for “wilfully spreading fear and alarm” with its brand of politics, People’s Action Party (PAP) second assistant secretary-general Tharman Shanmugaratnam said he was “troubled” by the opposition party’s populist policy proposals.

In a 30-minute speech that rounded up the PAP’s final rally for the Bukit Batok by-election on Thursday (May 5), Mr Tharman, who is Deputy Prime Minister, also tore apart several policy proposals that the SDP spent much time defending during the General Election last September.

While stressing he is not against a “healthy opposition”, Mr Tharman said: “The way (the SDP) is going about what they call policy proposals is, in fact, the politics of spreading fear and alarm, and the politics of populism ... (It is) the wrong type of politics for Singapore, the wrong way to advance our democracy.”

The SDP pushes for populist policies, such as universal healthcare and unemployment insurance, without telling the electorate what these would cost, said Mr Tharman. A universal healthcare system modelled after France, for instance, would require an average individual to fork out 20 per cent of his or her income as taxes, he noted.

“So it’s not free. You must tell them it’s not free ... That’s how we have to discuss policies. Lay out benefits, lay out the costs. Be honest about it. Don’t bluff people,” he said.

As he refuted the SDP’s various claims against the Government, Mr Tharman had strong words for the party’s secretary-general Chee Soon Juan. Dr Chee’s claim during his rally on Tuesday that some S$800 billion from Central Provident Fund reserves have gone missing is “absolute rubbish”, said Mr Tharman. “Dr Chee himself says, ‘I don’t understand much of what I just said’ ... Then why do you spread fear?” he questioned. On Dr Chee’s claim during his rally on Tuesday that only 100 jobs were created for locals last year, Mr Tharman responded: “Crazy! Have a sense of reality.”

The Ministry of Manpower clarified that the figures Dr Chee referred to — local employment — did not refer to the total number of new jobs taken by locals. Local employment refers to the difference between total number of locals entering jobs and those leaving jobs, for example owing to retirement. It also pointed out that the difference was 700 last year, not 100.

Setting the record straight on Thursday night, Mr Tharman cited how the Employment and Employability Institute and Workforce Development Agency matched 17,000 people to jobs last year, while investments by the Economic Development Board generated about 20,000 jobs.

“Have a sense of reality. Either you don’t know, in which case, do the homework. Or you know, and you are wilfully spreading fear and alarm. Bad, bad politics,” he said.

Calling for political parties to pursue “politics of consensus”, Mr Tharman said: “Advancing our democracy is not about speaking as fearlessly or fiercely as you can. It’s about developing a consensus in society, pushing it forward so we build a more inclusive society.”

Singapore must not follow in the footsteps of the United States and countries in Western Europe, where “demagogues now have great sway in a way that never was before”, he added. “We must never get there. Never pursue politics of division. Always pursue the politics of developing consensus. You don’t need to agree with the PAP ... But discuss things openly, tell people the truth. These are the benefits, these are the costs. Let’s argue what’s best. Always go for a consensus and a better consensus. That is how we advance democracy,” he said.

Urging residents to vote for a credible candidate whom they can trust, Mr Tharman said Mr Murali Pillai is one such man.

“He dares, he delivers, he works out solutions. And you will always know he is doing it because of you, not him ... You can trust Murali to serve you because it’s you, not because you are part of his political journey,” he said.

In closing, Mr Tharman said he would congratulate Dr Chee should he get the residents’ mandate. Otherwise, he would advise Dr Chee to “reflect”.

He added: “Ask, ‘how can things improve?’ This is his fifth constituency. ‘What should change?’ That would be my advice for Dr Chee ... Don’t keep blaming the system, and try and change.”

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sdp-spreading-fear-alarm-populist-politics-says-tharman