Singapore Government needs better HR management
Written by ED on June 10, 2008 – 5:48 am - Posted in Current Affairs, Singapore |Hey, I don’t put up such a bold title if I haven’t had concrete evidence alright? I was just having coffee when one of the news report in Channel NewsAsia almost choked me to death. After catching my breath, I am now laughing as I typed this post. If you’re curious, it’s here that reported about the Government keeping the 3/4 tank rule for Singapore vehicles travelling up north.
No, I have no problem with that. Maybe I should say, I have grown used to it. Removing the 3/4 tank rule or not doesn’t really makes a lot of difference in Singapore. When funds are lost through one avenue, there’s always something else to bank on to recuperate those revenues.
What’s really funny is… Ministry of Finance replied to CNA’s queries;
…authorities are monitoring the situation. But at this point, the ministry said, there are no plans to review the three-quarter tank rule. It added the rule is part of Singapore’s policy to moderate vehicle usage and reduce traffic congestion.
Do you catch my drift? If you don’t, let me explain.
1. Ministry of Finance cum Ministry of Transport / Land Transport Authority
Since when Ministry of Finance began to monitor and manage road conditions and automobile issues? It’s hilarious! Who knows one day we will start seeing Traffic Police from Ministry of Finance?
2. Less petrol restrictions = More traffic congestion?
We have the 3/4 tank rule for so many years, does it seem to be resolving any traffic congestions? Since when Ministry of Finance has turned itself into road marshal at immigration checkpoints?
Are our Government Ministries confused with what their job scopes are? I don’t know. If the 3/4 tank rule is in place to ensure revenues for local fuel operators (which most motorists are well aware of), just say it as it is. Some bound to be mad, we can’t please everyone afterall. But at least they know what the truth is. What’s the point of coming up with a complete BS which doesn’t even fall into the purview of Ministry of Finance?
Maybe that’s what they meant by “system integration” across all civil service departments, to the point everyone is doing everybody’s else work. So now Ministry of Transport or Land Transport Authority have been covered by Ministry of Finance, what should they be re-assigned to? OH… manage the sea lanes!
Oh come on… show me you are putting the right people at the right desk in the right department.
HILARIOUS!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Since when do they monitor the traffic that’s going north? Since when did the ERP ever reduce traffic congestion?
It’s been a long time since anyone of them said anything with common sense or reasonable.
How I love thy country.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am
[...] Discourse - The Bosonic State: A Case of Similar Attractions - Endoh’s Dungeon: Singapore Government needs better HR management - Hard Hitting in the Lion City: Who is better for Singapore? - Yawning Bread: Pity that Youthquake [...]
June 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
It may be to preempt any suggestion to drop that rule. With the price gap of Malaysian and Singaporean petrol getting closer, they are trying to tell people to forget about the cancellation of this rule. This could be the key reason.
Probably the ministries push around this responsiblity and it landed finally in the Finance Ministry.
The rest of the articles is BS.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The 3/4-tank rule is to prevent the leakage of taxation on petrol. Of course it concerns the Ministry of Finance.
The taxation on petrol is to increase the cost of car usage (as opposed to car ownership). Of course it concerns the traffic management.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
When does Revenue generating ideas ever get curtailed or cancelled? They will continue to milk every cent from the peasants to justify their out of this world salaries.
Sigh…. They think we are kids still.
Vote Wisely Please. It will cost you MORE if you Dont.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
But isn’t that what the government is saying?
Taxation of petrol is one method to reduce traffic congestion. 3/4-tank-rule is one method to ensure there is no leakage on taxation of petrol.
Hence, 3/4-tank-rule is one method to reduce traffic congestion.
It’s not the government’s fault if you cannot understand simple logic.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
In Singapore, taxation matters are under the Ministry of Finance, regardless of the underlying social (or otherwise) reasons for taxation. There are no “overlapping” of responsibilities in taxation matters, as far as I know.
Also, as I understand, taxation of petrol has always been used as one measure for control of traffic growth. LTA’s “A World Class Land Transport System” white paper briefly mention this: “Measures which are not location or time specific are blunt instruments for controlling congestion. Road tax is one example — it is essentially a one-off cost paid annually by the motorists. Excise duty on petrol, wich has remained unchanged for many years, is another.”
And in fact, the “excise duty on petrol” has been reduced since the white paper. Nevertheless, it has not been removed.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Fact: If this is a matter of traffic control, then the Ministry of Transport or LTA should come out and say “We would like this to be maintained because it is part of our plan of traffic control.”
Fact: The Ministry of Finance shouldn’t be concerned nor be explaining why that policy should be maintained because their job is simply to collect the money.
I thought this would have been a simple post that is easily understandable by any layman. But perhaps either some people already think their level is too high for us mere mortals to understand and so speaks in a level where only the MIW would understand.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“Hence, 3/4-tank-rule is one method to reduce traffic congestion.”
Oh, really? This is going to help reduce traffic jams of cars GOING OUT of Singapore?
I did not know this rule also helps to reduce traffic congestion INSIDE Singapore.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
It make sense to have one central agency (i.e. MOF) to decide on taxation matters, so that conflicting requirements from different agencies can be resolved.
(E.g. LTA might want a heavy tax on petrol to discourage driving, but EDB might want to reduce tax on petrol to encourage small business. Somebody has to take responsibility to say that we’ll listen to LTA but not EDB.)
If I didn’t misunderstand you, you are looking from one dimension: tax on petrol is because of road congestion (let’s say), so it’s a LTA problem, so LTA should be the one deciding to continue taxing. What I am saying is that many ministries will have different opinions on this particular tax (some may want to increase the tax, some may want to decrease the tax), so MOF should step in and say whether we want the tax or not, and for what reason.
P.S. Singapore government’s 3/4-tank rule is not to discourage cars from *going out of Singapore*, but to discourage car owners from buying cheap petrol in Malaysia to *drive in Singapore*.
If you are not going to try to understand the rationale as given by the government, how can you criticize the government effectively?
June 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Honestly, take a look at some country nearby and you’ll understand why it makes sense to have one central agency to handle taxation matters, and not let individual agencies suka-suka decide.
Ministry A, taking care of fuel subsidies: I want to add a tax for all foreigners coming in by car, because they buy cheap petrol with subsidies not meant for foreigners.
Ministry B, taking care of tourism: WTF? Eh, ministry A, you never think of us, is it? You go and add extra tax for foreigners, how am I going to attract tourists coming into our country to wine and dine?
MOF: Okay, Ministry B, you win, Ministry A, you lose. No new tax.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
MOF is just trying to show that they have taken into considerations of other government depts strategic directions.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:35 am
1. If you refuse to see this 3/4-tank-rule as a rule to reduce taxation leakage, then so be it. But just because the way you organize things is different from the government, doesn’t mean that the way the government organize things is without reason.
2. If you refuse to believe government’s line that this taxation of petrol is one method to control traffic growth, then show us why the government’s logic is wrong. Shouting your lungs out that this is just to collect more money is useless; afterall, which taxation, from sin tax to ERP to income tax, is not about collecting money? But each of them have do have its stated social purposes.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:02 am
[...] my words into something else, which isn’t the case. As some of you would have read one of my previous post here, Mr Heng seemed to have totally misunderstood where I stand regarding the [...]
June 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I think you may have to elaborate on where I misunderstood you.
You wrote: “Since when Ministry of Finance began to monitor and manage road conditions and automobile issues? It’s hilarious! Who knows one day we will start seeing Traffic Police from Ministry of Finance?”
My response to this point is that: this is not an issue about monitoring road conditions and automobile issues. This is about pluging a loophole in the taxation system, so that people cannot use this loophole to avoid paying the petrol tax.
You wrote: “If the 3/4 tank rule is in place to ensure revenues for local fuel operators (which most motorists are well aware of), just say it as it is. [...] What’s the point of coming up with a complete BS which doesn’t even fall into the purview of Ministry of Finance?”
And I responded: the government’s rationale is that petrol tax is used to add to the cost of driving in Singapore, as a means to discourage people from driving in Singapore. This was one of Singapore government’s policies all along, and indeed LTA even stated this in black-and-white in the White Paper.
So in summary:
1. Why is MOF responding to this question? Well, because this *is* a taxation issue — specifically, plugging a loophole in the taxation system. So, it makes sense for MOF to respond.
Of course it will make sense for LTA to respond similarly too. But all I am saying is that it also make sense for MOF to respond too.
2. Why is MOF using the reason of traffic congestion? Because that’s what this tax is about.
For example, income tax comes under IRAS (which is under MOF), but the tax collected can be used for social purposes like funding police (MHA) or building airports (MOT) or subsidizing education (MOE). When you go and ask MOF why is it collecting income tax, you’d expect MOF to explain the various uses of income tax, and not to tell you: “I don’t know. I’m just collecting money”, do you?
Is my English so difficult to understand, too? Or are you just refusing to read what I wrote?
June 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Actually, it’s you who are refusing to read what Endoh wrote, Heng.
For the matter of record, why don’t you reference a link from a .gov.sg site or whatsoever to back up your arguments? I am personally not interested in how you understand it or how this is being viewed by you.
Say your piece, quote your references and make your piece. I get sick and tired of you repeating the same old shit 101 ways when nothing new is coming out of it.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I tend to agree with HCL. The underlying policy does involve taxation and therefore this concerns the MOF. Of course other agencies are definitely involved. Perhaps MOF could have made their reply clearer. No mention of taxation is made, it is not even implied. It takes someone like HCL to connect the dots.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
[...] Hands in Too Many Pies - The Bosonic State: A Case of Similar Attractions - Endoh’s Dungeon: Singapore Government needs better HR management - Hard Hitting in the Lion City: Who is better for Singapore? - Yawning Bread: Pity that Youthquake [...]