I’ve just read a letter in the Straits Times forum that
argued against the concept of tagging fines against a person’s salary. The main
thrust of the writer’s argument was the fact that the rule of law should be the
same regardless of the offender’s social economic background.
The article can be read at:
While I can sympathize with the writer in as much as I do
believe that the “rule of law,” should be applied no matter the offender’s
background, I do find it rather perplexing that calls to ensure the “rule of
law” is fairly distributed inevitably comes whenever it involves giving the
well to do less or making the well to do pay more. This particular letter wasn’t
the only instance of this. I remember when there was a discussion on “means
testing” government benefits. There was an almighty hue and cry over how means
testing was unfair to the middle class.
As far as I know, Singapore must be the only country where
people are worried about how unfair life is against the well to do. In just
about every other country I’ve lived in (mainly well to do European ones), the
idea of social welfare or government goodies is understood to be something that
the less well-off receive because they are – well, the less-well off (polite term
for poor).
Perhaps its just me but I’m with Warren Buffet, one of the richest
men in the world. Mr. Buffet observed that although he paid a greater amount in
taxes than his secretary, what she paid in taxes took more out of her salary
that what his taxes were out of his. Mr. Buffet went onto argue that the rich
and powerful like himself were the last people who needed protection from the government.
I think this is something that our well to do need to understand.
I’m not against rich people or against people getting rich.
Life is intrinsically unfair and there is in many cases a good reason why some
people thrive and some people remain stuck. My “rich” friends are actually
pretty hard working and relatively clever with money. My “basket case” friends
are the type that seem more interested in self-indulgence than in feeding
themselves. They’re the type that would rather spend their last dollar on a
pack of smokes than on the bus fare they need to get to the job that could finance
their own smokes.
So, I’m not for governments that like talk about “soaking”
the rich as if the rich were a disease. Rich people, as the British discovered
in the 70s, have a way of being able to move around and when you go after the
rich or the people who want to get rich, they end moving elsewhere and the
value and energy they bring to the table goes with them. For all of Mrs.
Thatcher’s faults, she actually rescued the UK from the failed policies of the
Labour Government’s of the 70s who made it their mission to tax the rich out of
existence, thus causing anyone with more than a penny or anyone who thought he
or she was worth more than a penny to pack their bags and leave.
Nor am I suggesting that society make it obligatory for
people to support the less well off. The doll or the concept of “free money”
robs people of the will to make something of their lives. I remember mentioning
that I found it difficult to “look after myself,” and I was told by one of my
best friends, “Why do you need to look after yourself when there are other
people dying to take care of you.” Governments exist to provide certain
services and to set and enforce certain rules. They should not be about doing
for people what the people should do for themselves.
Having said all of that, there are times when a society
needs to redistribute the goodies to keep the system healthy. There are people
who need a helping hand and leg up to get out of a hole, which may not necessarily
be of their own fault. There are also times when sanctions need to be meaningful.
Shouldn’t social well fare payments go to those who really need them rather than to people who don’t need them? Prudent financial stewardship has done Singapore well and having money in the bank allows governments to help those who need help without punishing the rest of us. There is no reason why the government should end up giving money to those who are capable of earning their own crust.
Then there’s the concept of fines. We fine people in society
because they have committed certain transgressions. The fine should be a means
of teaching the offender not to commit the offence again.
Setting a fine at a certain level in an absolute amount
affects people in different ways. Take the example of traffic offences. The
objective of say fining people for not obeying traffic lights is to teach them
to obey traffic lights. It may sound fair if you charge a construction worker
earning the princely sum of say $1,000 a month the same $100 that you would
charge a Ferrari driver (Ferrari in Singapore is about S$500,000 and that excludes
the costs of maintaining the car). Yes, you’ve charged both the same amount of
money but you’ve only ensured that the construction worker learns from it (10 percent
of his income). The Ferrari owner won’t feel it (I remember dealing with an
Indonesian Chines guy who kept going on about why he’d pay the liquidation fees
of a failed venture – “Oh, its just a speeding ticket to me – a small sum that while
inconvenient is something that has to be done). The purpose of the fine in this
case is no longer about teaching people to make them better but to inconvenience
them once in a while to extract a few dollars more.
In a strange way, you need some form of redistribution to
ensure healthy competition in society. It makes common sense to ensure that in
order to have equality under the rule of law, you may have to look beyond the
letter and towards the spirit of the laws and apply unequal solutions to
achieve equality of outcome.
No comments
Post a Comment