Tax: A Tale of Two Models

We were in the car, the two of us. My father, the model upper middle class parent driving his ford, asking concerned questions about school. And me, being just me (all self-description is ultimately deceitful, so I won’t even bother). The radio is our verbose thrid party. RIght now it was talking about the new materinity “package” (O dreadful term of beaurcracy) rolled out as yet another incentive for this sterile city state to have more babies. And indulging in the very local pastime if comparing life here with life else where (if just to assure ourselves that life here is bearable), the pogram had contacted Singapreans living overseas to ask them how living in fabled welfare states was like.

Being eminently pragmatic, the discussion centered around the cost of living here and in other countries (mostly continental European). And while nearly everyone interviewed did agree that a welfare state was a rather comfortable place to live. But at the almost dogged prompting of the DJ about “no free lunch,” they later did concede that the cost of the welfare was enacted through wide spread taxation. Placing aside the very aggrivating not-so subtle prompts of the DJ (that, like the brackets in this article, turned up as merely not too subtle hints as to a particular policy outlook), the argument about higher taxes does not satisfactorarily strikes out the possibility of a welfare state.

Consider: You pay income taxes at around 30%, GST equivalents of 10-15%, and face a high living cost in food commodities. On the bright side you recieve nearly free health care, free maternaty care, free schooling, and a host of other welfare benefits. The alternative is that you pay 5-15% (on average) income tax, the ever bizzare CPF contributions, and GST. This same low tax is then used as a shield against claims about a rising cost of living because hey! there’s low tax. Exactly where all this tax goes to, you aren’t very sure. Because you still pay for most of your fees, while the annual reserves mysteirously gets ever larger. 

Conclusion: I’d much rather pay high tax for returns that are readily apparent, than see my wealth slowly bleed away through miscellenous small contributions to causes that no one is really sure helps you. Plus, when welfare is out in the open, the government is not able to shrink from that responsibiliy.

Ego V. Reality

My lords, I have review the facts of the case and now deliver judgment for the court. The case concerns the very interesting situation of the plaintiff (“Ego”) appealing against the actions of the respondant (“Reality”). Briefly, Ego attended what might be called a competition, and therin failed to quality. We will not speculate on the reasons why, although Ego has submitted that the judges were baised in holding him too casual in his mannerisms. We note that while Ego has been almost too casual in his appearance before this court, we are not convinced that he lost solely on this defect. Surely, his co-conspirators Laziness and Apahty had a part to play in these proceedings. None the less, Ego has conceded that his opponent was a truly formidable individual, and well deserved her entry. 

Shortly after these events, Ego then begun to brood. It would seem that he took offence to some other parties who had qualified for said competition. This bothered Ego immensely because he had previously listed these persons as being inferior. Worse still, Ego has had some history in not being able to win or suceed at the crucial points in life. He was thus aghast to once again discover that he was loosing to those he would consider his lessers. Given this slump, Ego then began proceedings against the defendant, Reality, asserting that inter alia  the defendant had been negligent, decietful and misrepresented variosu facts crucial to Ego’s well being. Ego sought compensation as well as specfic performance.

It is well established law that in such a case, the defendant bears no duty to ensure the well being of the plaintiff. Reality has faced similar suits before, and in all of those, the court has reluctantly had to rule for Reality. Simply put, while we openly find many practices of Reality disgusiting, there is no point in law that will enable us to rule against them. Even if a claim were to suceed, Reality has relatively little funds to pay. Specific performance and injunctions are also far to onerous, and may destroy the space time continium. 

 

Judgement for the Respondents.

Olympic Misadventures

This article was something I submitted to the online citizen in hopes of getting published. It was er… fairly well rejected (if that was possible). Even though it didn’t get published, it was apparently because the matter was time sensitive, and I did get a nice note from the editor. At any rate, I’m putting it up here, in hopes that someone will read it. Of course i know this place isn’t exactly the pinnacle of viewership, but I never really wrote this article for it to be popularly read. I wrote it, (and i apologize for being overly dramatic) simply because it had to be written.

Hyperboles are one of those prerogatives of sporting journalism. Legendary, super human, out of this world, or in the case of our recent Olympic outing, history making and capturing the heart of a nation. In the heat of the moment even the wildest of these claims seem to be true, but when the euphoria and flash lights fade, the glory of winning fades at an alarming rate. So it is that some days after Li Jia Wei and team won Singapore silver, that even some of the most ardent supporters are finally begin to reflect on our path to the medal podium.

“Was it worth it?” seems to be the question asked. Far from a simple snipe at the ever pertinent foreign talent issue, the discussions taking place in local web communities all hint at something deeper. It is, one might hope, a conscious attempt to come to grips with a “winning at all cost” culture before it becomes too pervasive. For as much as we might like to rationalize with our small population pool, the fact is that we scouted out 3 Chinese players through a scheme specially designed for that purpose. The part that really rankles for the average Singaporean is that a good chuck of all these sporting expenditure comes from government funding; in short “tax payer’s money.”

What that money has bought us is a silver medal in what looks increasingly like a hollow victory. Web critics are a dime a dozen, and naturally the usual forum haunts have been vitriolic in their dismay over how the silver medal was won. Blogs paint a juxtaposed picture of individuals trying to express their disappointment without sounding xenophobic. Surprisingly the loudest critique came from the mainstream media, where a Straits Times correspondent writes that he was not proud of how Singapore achieved its medals. “When I think of Wang Yuegu, Li Jiawei and Feng Tianwei,” he writes “I can think of only foreigners brought in by Singapore to win medals and are paid handsomely for it.”

Peel back the issue further, and one is left wondering why we went on this mad rush for Olympic medals in the first place. Are Singaporeans fixated on winning in the sporting arena? Are Singaporeans even big fans of table tennis? Or was the sport simply one of convenience that we could get the best talent for? It might just seem that our Olympic pursuits were embarked on simply because winning is deemed to be intrinsically good. If that is the case, then there is serious cause for concern. For then we are prioritizing the end result over the cost of the means we use, and acknowledging only the winners, but not those who finish in second place.

To paint the picture fully, one only needs to look to China. While the Olympics have just finished off to typical acclaim from the International Olympic Committee, it is hard to ignore the lengths at which such glory was achieved. Factories forced to close down, forced evictions of residents and the harsh clamp down on protestors during the games. Many have brushed off the last point by saying that one should not politicize the games, which is true enough. However, to wholly depoliticize the Olympics is almost akin to selective stupidity. Even within the games themselves, China’s antics sit uneasily with the spirit of the Olympics. First being the lip syncing fiasco during the opening ceremony and then the alleged falsification of the ages of their gymnastic team.

Above all, two things from the Games should be seen with some apprehension. One of them is purely anecdotal, while to other was a drama that played across billions of television screens. First, a Chinese friend recently mentioned that the US method of using total medals earned to rank countries was absurd, since Gold was the only color that matters. Using that viewpoint, one has to wonder if silver and bronze are just glorified losers. Of course it is ignorant to suggest that the US ranking of countries by total medals earned has nothing to do with national ego. However, such a ranking system does accord some degree of recognition to silver and bronze medalists rather than ignoring them completely.

More ghastly was the episode involving Chinese hurdles champion Lu Xiang. When he was forced to pull out of the competition owing to injury, the sportsman went overnight from national darling to condemned. China’s very verbose web communities lambasted Lu Xiang, with some of the more outrageous even claiming that he had quit on purpose. The rise and fall of Lu Xiang illustrates the ugliness of a “winning” culture, whereby even the most heroic of figures are nonchalantly cast aside like broken toys when they stop winning gold medals.

China’s example might sound almost academically remote from our little island. It is true that by comparison, our vague unease at the method at which our silver medal was gotten pales in comparison to how Lu Xiang was branded as a failure instantaneously. However, our current position is exactly the right time to start thinking about our attitudes towards winning, and how we treat the losers in our society. For as we are, we are still able to rationalize our choices, and question what we have done – as many have been doing in the past few days. China on the other hand, has the same winning culture so entrenched that it is difficult to thread anywhere without bogging down oneself in nationalistic pride and sentiment.

Finally, the issue is all the more compounded because this isn’t just about the sporting arena. Our social attitudes towards the less fortunate, our ability to empathize and not pity, our laws affecting the mentally unsound – all these are greatly colored by how much we venerate the “winners” and how much we ignore the “losers.” Likewise, our work ethic, principles and moral values are determined by how much we are able to appreciate the road to victory, and not just victory itself. It is a balance of attitudes that will challenge Singapore to not have an elite class that elitist, but an elite class that is responsible and ethical.

Perhaps it is in this balance that we can find the proper response to Singapore winning a silver medal. Congratulations to Li Jia Wei and team. While you may not have been what we had in mind for Olympic glory, there is no taking away the fact that you have performed very well on the world stage. And for the Singapore Sports Council, it is time for reassessment of how we are going to win our future medals. A Singaporean sportsman is not entirely impossible – after all Jamaica has a smaller population and still performs amazingly. And even if our sports champion were to lose, it is illuminating to recall that to be a national hero; you don’t necessarily have to win.