Policies for greater equity?

Policies for greater equity?

SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.

However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.

Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.

Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.

What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.

Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.

And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.

Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1