A reader wrote to the Straits Times to suggest that "old" citizens and "new" citizens should be treated differently for priority allocation into the choice schools. A new citizen wrote today to state that this would be unfair and is bad for Singapore.
For the past 20 years, I have strongly disliked the practice of our Government leaders and top civil servants in writing complicated rules to differentiate between different classes of people - graduates and non-graduates, different allocation to benefits according to the type of house that you live in, different eligibility to tax relief according to the birth order of your child or the year of birth, different level of health care subsidy according to the type of house you live in and income, complicated rules to determine eligibility for welfare payments, and so on.
If you are caught on the wrong side of the rule, bad luck to you. And the people who write the rules will know how to be on the right side of these rules. It is unfair, but this is Singapore. We are used to this type of environment.
I wish Singapore to be fairer and simpler. We should make high income earners pay more tax, and after that, apply the same level of benefits to all citizens, regardless of income level or housing type. There is no need for complicated rules.
We should pay an adequate allowance, almost like a full time salary, to our National Servicemen. After that, there is no need to have complicated rules to give them slightly more in entitlement to Government benefits.
Tan Kin Lian
- ► 2020 (453)
- ► 2019 (1839)
- ► 2018 (1406)
- ► 2017 (1258)
- ► 2016 (828)
- ► 2015 (691)
- ► 2014 (144)
- ► 2013 (501)
- ► 2012 (1269)
- ► 2011 (1873)
- ► 2010 (2369)
12/20 - 12/27
- Dangers of Big Banks
- Paul Volcker on Financial Innovation
- Temasek review reported on my views about MM Lee's...
- Glass Stegall Act
- High retail price
- Advice on making insurance claims
- Pop star: Boymongoose
- About the father of modern day Singapore
- Good and bad regulation
- Today in Singapore
- Bad snow storms
- Need to tax fat bonuses
- Why roulette is better than land banking
- SCMP: Investors offered 80 pct payout for Lehman p...
- Repaying bailout funds
- Goldman Sachs and synthethetic CDO
- Quality of life and occupation
- Insuring a home for the right value
- Are Singaporeans less hard working and hard drivin...
- Confidentiality agreements
- Did the investment banks benefited at the expense ...
- Old and new citizens
- Will Goldman Sachs sue Thomas Adams?
- Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for 2010
- Playing with fire
- Churning the CPF savings
- Rechargeable torchlight and shape quiz
- Vera and Nadya
- Helping the poor
- Ask about the charges
- Get full facts about the financial product
- The Fed's regulatory errors
- Observations about Hong Kong
- Stress at FIDREC hearngs
- Avoid ETF with steep fees
- Need for savings and liquidity
- Shape Quiz at $2
- Climbing stairs as an exercise
- Time to scrap the White Pages
- Coping with unemployment
- Investing in properties
- Understanding fund brochures
- Why pay Singapore TV licence?
- Need to investigate AIG
- Bonus of bankers
- Panda in zoo in Chengdu, China
- Pearl Shaol Falls in Jiuzhaigou, China
- Take care of customers
- ▼ 12/20 - 12/27 (48)
- ► 2008 (2104)
- ► 2007 (1803)
- ► 2006 (696)
- ► 2005 (159)