Friday, October 29, 2010

Live Longer, Work Longer (2)

Besides unhappiness amongst the public, it seems that local companies are also angry at the new raise in retirement age.

By raising the retirement age, it effectively means that in a typical company, there would be an increase in the number of old employees working, because companies would be obliged to keep their employees till retirement age. This is further ensured by the new re-employment scheme that will be rolled out by 2012.

Precisely because this matter is one of the most pertinent social problems that Singapore is facing now, it is important that multiple social viewpoints should be carefully considered and weighed before any decision is being made. As such, it is not only vital but necessary that the government should change the spotlight from the citizen's viewpoint to the company's viewpoint as well as economic drawbacks of having a old workforce.

Although in my last post, we have established the conclusion that it is necessary for the old to work, so as to balance out the working : non-working ratio, it is also vital to take a closer, more down-to-Earth look at the older section of workforce, and whether they are effective workers that can contribute to our developing industries.

In fact, this hoo-ha has already been brought up last year, when the government pointed out the advantage of having older workers in the company. PM Lee highlighted that older workers have more experience in company procedures, and are wiser than younger employees when it comes to making critical decisions.

However, it is also true that younger workers, especially those who have just graduated, have more drive, passion and motivation when they enter the company. Younger workers are also more energetic and will go the extra mile.

Take my uncle for example. He has been working for his company for at least 10 years already, and being an old worker there, he knows many loopholes in the company's leave and MC system. Recently, he has taken this to his advantage, coming home at earlier hours than he is supposed to. Generally, he would seize the opportunity to slack (e.g. trading shares in company) whenever he can.

As such, it is clear how older workers lack drive when working, especially when there are increasing physical limitations. So, what can we do if our country becomes a country which depends on an old-workforce?

Firstly, birth-rates must increase. The government is really doing too little to encourage child-bearing. Incentives such as motherly leave are not attractive enough. Besides monetary incentives, the government should also hold seminars to persuade couples of the benefits of having children. More rigorous campaigns such as pasting of posters, cartoons etc. should be used.

Also, citizens should be welcoming to foreign PRs (e.g. PRs from China, India, America etc.) , and not always complain about them. After all, they have proven to be very innovative and creative when coming out with ideas in a company. They also have generally higher birth-rates.

In a nutshell, the government really has to put more effort and emphasis on this matter. Singaporeans should not be too ignorant, indifferent or over-reactive towards what the government is doing too. Only then, can we have more driven and healthy society and economy.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Live Longer, Work Longer

With reference to 29th October Straits Times article - "Live Longer, Work Longer".

It looks like a worker 62 this year who can't wait for retirement has to wait - and work - 6 more years before he can officially retire and enjoy CPF pensions.

Minister in the Primer Minister's Office Mr Lim Boon Heng yesterday released a press statement considering the idea of raising retirement age up to 68 from the current age of 62, "in view of the social benefits of doing so".

Current legislations such as the re-employment policy which will only be released in January 2012 have been pinpointed as "too slow", and as such there must be "more (examination on) how (the government) can further raise the retirement age" .

This idea was precipitated by the Finland system where retirement age is 68, but life expectancy is lower than an average Singapore senior citizen. Mr Lim Boon Heng quipped that "this gives us am indication about where we should be heading".

While many citizens - especially senior citizens - complained about the adverse social effects it could bring, it is understandable where the government is coming from.

This is a controversial issue because of the fact that there is unhappiness raised amongst the citizens. Comments such as "When are we going to rest?", "It seems that we would work forever", "The government would keep pushing the age up" easily gives us a clear horizon of one social viewpoint amongst the citizen.

And it is true - raising the retirement age is not just a matter of "following Finland's system", but actually a number that the government has been constantly changing for the past decade - from 50 to 68 is indeed a big change that will be especially frustrating for senior citizens stuck in the ever-changing and never-stabilizing system.

The government no doubt gives lame excuses - from telling us that "other countries like U.S., Germany and Britain are also doing it", to assuring us that "people are living longer" and "they wouldn't have enough savings to last for 15 years if they retire when they are just 62 or 65".

Indeed, who can predict fate? With increasing carbon emission and pollution rates, coupled with decreasing food quality, I, for one, would consider myself lucky if I can live until the idealistic age of 80 the government estimated. Although it is true that global life expectancy has increased with better healthcare and technology, who can really know if he or she would not die tomorrow? Furthermore, why would one like to work for close to 70 years, only having about 10 years to enjoy the fruit of his labour?

Being stuck in this valid social viewpoint, the government still nonetheless plays the bad guy because they are really left with no choice. Singapore, just like any other developed country (e.g. Britain and Japan) is slowly facing the problem of population aging, one of the most pertinent but inevitable global problems today. With supposedly better healthcare, people are living longer on the average. This, coupled with the fact that there is decreasing birth rates, make it such that if the old does not work, there would be an inbalance of workforce : non-working population ratio which will lead to an unhealthy society. In layman terms, in the future there would be inevitably too small a working group to support too large a group of non-working population.

And really, this problem only has two solutions: one to make the old work, and the other to attract foreign talent to supplement our current workforce, and at the same time raise our brithrates. The latter sounds attractive?

However, the government, when implementing this solution, had been (if you can recall) faced with strong resistance and complaints from citizen with arguments such as "too many will cause loss in national identity!", "They are taking away our job positions!". And when these immature comments get ignored when the government really has no choice left but to attract foreign talent, another set of complaints about the "lack of democracy", and "citizen rights" attack the government.

These arguments may seem logical, but if we consider the bigger picture from the government's point of view, then, really what can they do to solve the population problem?

As such, let us accept the increase in retirement age as the only way out to measure to balance the workforce : non-workforce.

And let us be generally more understanding and empathizing to the government.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Property Price rise allieviation

Recent reports show a slowdown in property price growth, as cooling measures implemented by the government start to take effect. However, on the other hand, this in turn triggers a prompt rise in landed property prices.

Only three months ago, there was a big controversy raised over property cool-down measures by the government by opposition parties, grassroot leaders, as well as many netizens. Doubts were being expressed at measures such as policies to extend number of years one can buy and sell public property, clearing of land to build more HDB flats, special price privileges for citizens who buy property for the first time.

These measures are precipitated by concerns raised over the fact that many new citizens and young couples can't afford to simply have a roof over their head. The reason is clear - the increased number of investors in the property market putting their faith in public property.

The government's policies seem to be working thus far. However, it distills many other side effects. For example, although it is true that the government can control the various mechanics and matrixes of the public property market, landed property is something out of reach. And this side effects have already started to surface - with landed property prices surging this week from investors turning to landed property.

Furthermore, the measures the government have implemented are not long-term enough to totally cause a drop in prices. Singapore has a small land space and it is inevitable that there is really limited area in which the government can build more housing flats. As such, the government has to come up with longer-term solutions such as limiting our country's population, researching on technology of building higher (e.g. Duxton @ pinnacle that is about 40 storeys high), researching on reclaiming land from sea that is past 15 m deep etc.

The government's current solutions are effective in stalling the problem temporarily, but it is still vital to prepare longer-term solutions that increase land space, as well as maximize current land space.

The Haze Problem

For the past few days, and perhaps for the coming week, a quick look at the morning sky would give a view of not just a misty morning, but an hazy scene. In fact, recent haze levels have again hit a new high on unhealthy levels.

Visibility reached a wary low, posing imminent danger to cars on expressways, pedestrians crossing the road etc. Not only did overall air quality drop, symptoms such as teary eyes, difficulty to breathe were subtle but notable when one is near the haze in the air.

This problem is pertinent not only because of the adverse social impacts it poses to Singapore, but because it has proven not to be just a exotic one night stand, but instead more apparently long-term problem that will constantly haunt Indonesia's neighboring countries.

When the problem first surfaced around June in 2008, Indonesia pinpointed the blame to "an uncontrollable rise in forest fires" and also pledged to tackle the problem. However, the problem again resurfaced last year in August and once again drifted into our country recently this year.

As such, seeing that this problem cannot be just a temporary one, it is necessary for the Singapore government to implement measures that can really solve the root of the problem, or at least longer-term in its alleviation.

So far, solutions that have been reported seem rather irrelevant and ineffective. The government's action plan that requires our countries' environmental agencies to pledge haze impact reduction appears to be irrelevant because there are really little effective ways to contain the haze, or to minimize its various impacts, because it is inevitable that people have to go outdoors for daily routines.

The Asean seems rather irrelevant in this matter too. Although it has come up with a Asean Transboundary haze Pollution agreement, Indonesia, almost definitely the only country that produces this amount of haze, is also definitely the only country that has not rectified this agreement.

In my opinion, Asean should be more aggressive and pressurizing on this matter; even the UN can be involved in this matter. Due to the fact that Indonesia's actions not only affect itself, but also the whole region in general, it is logical that Asean reserves the right to intervene in Indonesia's methods and policies used to solve this problem. Countries involved such as Singapore should also stick in a head to solve a pertinent problem that is not only Indonesia's "domestic affairs", but a regional problem.

Solutions such as the combined purchasing of satellites to monitor regional forests, gathering teams of environmentalist to research on this matter, massive irrigation for Indonesian forests, tougher laws on forest utilization, protecting forests by converting them into national parks etc. can be implemented to ensure the safety of forests mainly in Indonesia, but also expendable to other Asean countries for longer-term planning.

I'm sure if Asean is willing to tackle this problem, together, a brighter and clearer tomorrow awaits us.