Liberal Arts College, Anyone ?

Come to Singapore lah !

Paul Krugman: American Thought Police

Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state’s political turmoil. He started a blog, “Scholar as Citizen,” devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin’s Republican governor has turned his back on the state’s long tradition of “neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.”

So what was the G.O.P.’s response? A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon’s university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word “Republican” and the names of a number of Republican politicians.

If this action strikes you as no big deal, you’re missing the point. The hard right — which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party — has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously a fishing expedition, an effort to come up with something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.

The Cronon affair, then, is one more indicator of just how reflexively vindictive, how un-American, one of our two great political parties has become.

The demand for Mr. Cronon’s correspondence has obvious parallels with the ongoing smear campaign against climate science and climate scientists, which has lately relied heavily on supposedly damaging quotations found in e-mail records.

Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.

But that didn’t stop the usual suspects from proclaiming that they had uncovered “Climategate,” a scientific scandal that somehow invalidates the vast array of evidence for man-made climate change. And this fake scandal gives an indication of what the Wisconsin G.O.P. presumably hopes to do to Mr. Cronon.

After all, if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you’re bound to find a few. In fact, it’s surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the “Climategate” trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence. But the right wants a scandal, and won’t take no for an answer.

Is there any doubt that Wisconsin Republicans are hoping for a similar “success” against Mr. Cronon?

Now, in this case they’ll probably come up dry. Mr. Cronon writes on his blog that he has been careful never to use his university e-mail for personal business, exhibiting a scrupulousness that’s neither common nor expected in the academic world. (Full disclosure: I have, at times, used my university e-mail to remind my wife to feed the cats, confirm dinner plans with friends, etc.)

Beyond that, Mr. Cronon — the president-elect of the American Historical Association — has a secure reputation as a towering figure in his field. His magnificent “’Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West” is the best work of economic and business history I’ve ever read — and I read a lot of that kind of thing.

So we don’t need to worry about Mr. Cronon — but we should worry a lot about the wider effect of attacks like the one he’s facing.

Legally, Republicans may be within their rights: Wisconsin’s open records law provides public access to e-mails of government employees, although the law was clearly intended to apply to state officials, not university professors. But there’s a clear chilling effect when scholars know that they may face witch-hunts whenever they say things the G.O.P. doesn’t like.

Someone like Mr. Cronon can stand up to the pressure. But less eminent and established researchers won’t just become reluctant to act as concerned citizens, weighing in on current debates; they’ll be deterred from even doing research on topics that might get them in trouble.

What’s at stake here, in other words, is whether we’re going to have an open national discourse in which scholars feel free to go wherever the evidence takes them, and to contribute to public understanding. Republicans, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, are trying to shut that kind of discourse down. It’s up to the rest of us to see that they don’t succeed.

GOPAPGOPAPGOPAPGOPAP ...

28 March 2011

We deserved it

Diary of a Singaporean Mind: How the Poor cope with rising food prices in Singapore

Mar 7, 2011
How Singaporeans fight food price hike[Link]
By Rachel Scully, Multimedia Journalist

IT'S been years since they last ate at a restaurant, and special occasions are celebrated at a hawker centre close to their home.

33-year-old Merry Sumeily is a mother of two who lives in a 4-room flat in Ang Mo Kio. Her husband is the sole breadwinner and brings home an average of $1,500 per month. Of that, about $350 to $400 is spent on groceries and food items.

To combat the recent price hikes, Merry and her family have two dishes, instead of three for dinner. And to save more money, they have switched from rice to porridge for dinner since December last year. Merry also happens to be a benefactor of the 'Talking Dollars and Sense' workshop organised by the People's Association.

Chief trainer, Tess Lim started this programme nearly seven years ago in April 2004 to educate lower-income families on budgeting. She has since helped over 2,000 families and taught them ways to manage their finances, including reducing their grocery bill.

Be it a twenty-cents increase in the price of a piece of fruit, or a two-dollar increase for a bottle of cooking oil, Tess offers reassurance that rising food prices have yet to severely change consumption behaviour among the families she's helped.

So how has rising food prices affected Singaporeans? RazorTV brings you stories straight from the heartlands on this week's Point Blank, as well as tips on how you can stretch your dollar.

The above story appeared in RazorTV. You can see the family on video by clicking on the link then going to part 2 of the video. The family survives on an income of $1500. When your household income is so low, a large part of it is spent on food. That is why many (may be all other) countries with GST exempt raw food and medical services from GST.

"The GST would replace the existing taxes on sales and services and would not put pressure on prices, he said, adding that to ease the burden on consumers, staple foods such as rice, sugar, cooking oil and flour will be exempted" - Malaysia Plan 4% GST in 2011[Link]

It was a simple move that would have made food and medical services cheaper for the poor but the PAP govt refused to do it when they implemented GST claiming that it was too "complex". Yes, we know doing simple things to help the poor is often too "complex" for this govt.

For poor families in Singapore, whose incomes have been relatively stagnant in real terms for more than a decade, rising food prices mean less and poorer quality of food for the family. For many, if not all developed countries, the solution is very simple. It comes in the form of food stamps that the poor can use for eggs. milk & staples to ensure poor nutrition never happens due to poverty.

Here in Singapore, the govt takes a different approach.

Remember in 2007 when oil prices rocketed (higher than what it is today), our utilities rate hit the roof and many poor families ran up arrears as they could not afford the electricity in Singapore. In other developed countries, the govt helps such families by either providing electricity at a cheaper rate under various low income schemes or money to offset the rising rates. The poor people are seen as "innocent victims" of inflation and no means or option to cope with it.

In Singapore, the govt installed PAYU systems in the homes of poor families so they cannot electricity unless they have money in their cash card that they have to insert into PAYU [Link]. The system helps to solve Singapore Power's problem with arrears collection[Link]. The govt and its propaganda machine euphemistically portrayed PAYU as system that helps the poor not to "overuse" electricity.

"At the same time, the PAYU scheme has provided these families the flexibility to settle their arrears over time and to budget their utility expenditure." - Minister Lim Hng Kiang[Link]

When poor folks cannot afford to pay for the electricity bills, the govt does not see our high electricity tariffs [2nd highest in the world] as the problem but see the way the poor budget their expenditure as the problem - that is why it conducts so many "Talking Dollars and Sense" workshop of the poor instead of giving them more direct aid. When the cost of living goes up, our govt solution is for the poor to use less electricity and water, eat less food and stay within budget.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, we deserve it, we voted them into parliament.

Will the morning after see 86 : 1 ?

i am afraid, the answer is yes.

08 March 2011

GOPAPGOPAPGOPAP ...

Now why won't the GOP learn something from the PAP ? Or was it the other way round ?

Diary of a Singaporean Mind : PAP MP : " Cutting GST does not help the poor ..."

You know how far down the standard of debate has fallen when an MP stands up and argues that cutting the GST does not help the poor. GST is a regressive tax that penalises the poor the most because they spend most of their income. If you're Wee Cho Yaw or Peter Lim you spend maybe 2% of your income and invest the rest, so you pay 0.0014% of your income in GST. Why was GST implemented? Before our income gap ballooned to what it is today, the PAP govt openly admitted that the purpose of GST is to cut corporate tax and the income tax of high income earners. This is seen from the 2003 budget statement by the then Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong:

"4.3 From YA 2003, I have decided to cut the corporate income tax rate from 24.5% to 22%. This 10% reduction will save businesses $700 million a year.

4.4 Also with effect from YA 2003, the top marginal personal income tax rate will be cut from 26% to 22%, with corresponding cuts in all income bands. This will reduce the tax payable by most taxpayers by 13% to 16%, saving them $620 million every year.

4.5 I have decided to raise the GST rate from 3% to 5% from 1 Jan 2003. The increase in GST is expected to raise an additional $1.3 billion of tax revenue per year."

If you total up loss of revenue from the corporate tax cuts and the tax cuts for highest income earnings, it is equal to the amount gained from the increase GST. This means that the poor who did not pay income tax had to fund the cuts for the rich through GST increases. In 2007, many Singaporeans became concerned about the income gap and the poor among us, the govt used this as the reason for GST hike ("gst hike to help the poor"). As they do this, they slashed corporate taxes again by 2%, that alone would take away more than half the amount raised by the increase

in GST....so before any help got to the poor more than half the GST hike went to fund corporate tax cuts[Link]. To date we have not seen govt figures of how much help eventually got to the poor - according to Leong Sze Hian ..not much[Link].

What I'm very sure of is our poor are worse off today than they were before the 2007 GST hike. The combination of rising cost of living and stagnant wages means much more needs to be done. If you look at the escalation in the cost of medical care, housing, transport, utilities and food, they simply overwhelm the meager help from the govt. We are all frustrated with govt dithering, bogus intentions and dubious arguments - Tharman actually came up with numbers to show the govt helped the "generous subsidies"[Link]. The true measure of whether the poor are really getting sufficient help is their quality of life...has it improved in the past 4 years? Find me a person who dares to say "yes" and I'll show you he's a liar!

02 March 2011

Joseph Heller was here

Musings from the Lion City : Strange New Rule

 Ever since Workfare came into being, there had been a lot of criticism from Singaporeans. Now I have to add my voice to it.

I know someone who earned about $800 a month. The way Workfare work is that if he managed to find work for 3 straight months, he is entitled for the Workfare. Seem easy enough right? It used to be, but not now.

According to him, his Workfare didn’t come in this month and when he called the CPF, he was told he is now considered a self-employed person. Why? The CPF say he is a self-employed person because he has a bus-driver vocational license. As he only speaks mandarin, I thought he made a mistake. I don’t have the exact numbers but there must be at least 50,000-60,000 people in Singapore who has a taxi or bus license, surely the CPF can’t consider all of them to be self-employed!

So I made a call on his behalf to CPF. Ho and behold, he was right! The CPF do consider him a self-employed person because of his bus-driver vocational license. In fact I was told he had to go to LTA and get a letter from LTA stating he is not self-employed.

That is just weird. How is LTA supposed to do that? LTA is in charge of roads and stuff like that; how are they supposed to know a man’s employment history? What’s even stranger is that this guy I know can’t own a bus. Buses can only be owned by a company or business in Singapore, it cannot be under a person’s name. So even if he is using his bus license, he can’t be self-employed because he cannot own a bus! He must be working for someone.

Why does the CPF think that just because a guy has a bus license, he is a self-employed? I know of many people who get a taxi or bus license as a “just in case” policy. They get it, they renew it, but they don’t use it. Are they ALL self-employed?

That’s insane! Why is the CPF making it so difficult for people to get Workfare, a scheme that isn’t really well-loved in the first place! Who in the CPF thought up this special insane new rule? The CPF should get rid of this new rule as well as the genius who thought it up.

02 March 2011

How Low Will You Go GOP ?

Paul Krugman : Leaving Children Behind

Will 2011 be the year of fiscal austerity? At the federal level, it’s still not clear: Republicans are demanding draconian spending cuts, but we don’t yet know how far they’re willing to go in a showdown with President Obama. At the state and local level, however, there’s no doubt about it: big spending cuts are coming.

And who will bear the brunt of these cuts? America’s children.

Now, politicians — and especially, in my experience, conservative politicians — always claim to be deeply concerned about the nation’s children. Back during the 2000 campaign, then-candidate George W. Bush, touting the “Texas miracle” of dramatically lower dropout rates, declared that he wanted to be the “education president.” Today, advocates of big spending cuts often claim that their greatest concern is the burden of debt our children will face.

In practice, however, when advocates of lower spending get a chance to put their ideas into practice, the burden always seems to fall disproportionately on those very children they claim to hold so dear.

Consider, as a case in point, what’s happening in Texas, which more and more seems to be where America’s political future happens first.

Texas likes to portray itself as a model of small government, and indeed it is. Taxes are low, at least if you’re in the upper part of the income distribution (taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average). Government spending is also low. And to be fair, low taxes may be one reason for the state’s rapid population growth, although low housing prices are surely much more important.

But here’s the thing: While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

But wait — how can graduation rates be so low when Texas had that education miracle back when former President Bush was governor? Well, a couple of years into his presidency the truth about that miracle came out: Texas school administrators achieved low reported dropout rates the old-fashioned way — they, ahem, got the numbers wrong.

It’s not a pretty picture; compassion aside, you have to wonder — and many business people in Texas do — how the state can prosper in the long run with a future work force blighted by childhood poverty, poor health and lack of education.

But things are about to get much worse.

A few months ago another Texas miracle went the way of that education miracle of the 1990s. For months, Gov. Rick Perry had boasted that his “tough conservative decisions” had kept the budget in surplus while allowing the state to weather the recession unscathed. But after Mr. Perry’s re-election, reality intruded — funny how that happens — and the state is now scrambling to close a huge budget gap. (By the way, given the current efforts to blame public-sector unions for state fiscal problems, it’s worth noting that the mess in Texas was achieved with an overwhelmingly nonunion work force.)

So how will that gap be closed? Given the already dire condition of Texas children, you might have expected the state’s leaders to focus the pain elsewhere. In particular, you might have expected high-income Texans, who pay much less in state and local taxes than the national average, to be asked to bear at least some of the burden.

But you’d be wrong. Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration; the gap will be closed solely through spending cuts. Medicaid, a program that is crucial to many of the state’s children, will take the biggest hit, with the Legislature proposing a funding cut of no less than 29 percent, including a reduction in the state’s already low payments to providers — raising fears that doctors will start refusing to see Medicaid patients. And education will also face steep cuts, with school administrators talking about as many as 100,000 layoffs.

The really striking thing about all this isn’t the cruelty — at this point you expect that — but the shortsightedness. What’s supposed to happen when today’s neglected children become tomorrow’s work force?

Anyway, the next time some self-proclaimed deficit hawk tells you how much he worries about the debt we’re leaving our children, remember what’s happening in Texas, a state whose slogan right now might as well be “Lose the future.”

01 March 2011