As the problem of the escalating cost of living continues, there has been discontent expressed by netizens, with some professing the opinion that Singapore’s policies benefit the rich over the poor. Amid news that Singapore is pressing ahead with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hikes, there is growing concern that those in the lower-income bracket would end up paying more.
“It is a fact GST is a regressive tax. The poor pay more as a percentage of their income than the rich. Responsible? Taking more money from the public in such difficult times is nothing short of irresponsible,” commented Facebook user Gary Tan which got nearly 100 likes.
Another Facebook user, Mohd Gaddafi, explained that “the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on essentials. It’s a regressive tax, regardless. They don’t want to remove it on essential items, unlike other countries.”
Given that the GST is a consumption tax with no exemptions on necessities, it does ring true that the poor will end up footing more of this tax proportionately. Whether you are rich or poor, you have to buy necessities such as food. If you earn less, then it follows that a greater proportion of your salary will be spent on food, which in turn means that you will be bearing the brunt of a consumption tax that has no exemptions on any necessities.
From this standpoint, the sense of worry from the average citizen is palpable and understandable. They feel helpless.
In Singapore, essential goods such as rice, diapers or baby food are not exempt from GST. No matter how much people try to tighten their belts, they will still need to consume the necessities just to live, which in turn means that they will be affected by the GST at every turn. With this in mind, it will of course be those who earn less that will bear the brunt of the increments.
In a time of global economic turmoil, is this really the best time for the Government to push ahead?
The Workers’ Party (WP) has long argued against the GST hikes, saying repeatedly in Parliament that such hikes were not necessary. The leading opposition party even set out alternatives to boost Government coffers with corporate and wealth taxes instead of GST increments. However, the viability of these potential suggestions was never fully explored in Parliament with the People’s Action Party (PAP) majority digging in their heels, with PAP leader elect, Lawrence Wong, even suggesting that it would be “highly irresponsible” for the Government not to push ahead with the hikes. Is this really true?
As news outlets report economic chaos, Microsoft, which has always been one of the few tech giants that have been hailed as recession-proof, has retrenched some 1,000 people recently. Axios reported that the layoffs were across regions and offices globally.
With global inflation and economic instability, it does seem that the Government could have delayed this GST hike. So, why not?
Alternatively, the Government can explore other avenues to cushion the blow. Jamus Lim, from the WP, has come up with various suggestions such as asking for the Government to increase the interest rates paid into the Ordinary Accounts (OA) of Central Provident Fund (CPF) account holders. Yet this was roundly rejected by Minister for Manpower, Tan See Leng.
Amid the backdrop of GST hikes and fears that the middle classes and the poor will be bearing the brunt of this increase, comes news that the Bentley driver who forced his way into the entrance of Red Swastika School in Bedok and hurt a security guard in the process was sentenced to eight weeks in jail and a S$600 fine. Netizens have expressed outrage for the perceived leniency of the sentence, opining that the Bentley driver only got off light because he was rich.
“The rich always get away very lenient. If he is a taxi, lorry or platform driver, the sentence will be different,” commented Facebook user Eric Ng on the news.
Charles Tan, also a Facebook user, wrote, “I think it offensive that Bentley driver gets off with such a light sentence. The message is resoundingly clear, ‘Poor life does not matter.‘”
While this incident is ostensibly unrelated to the GST hikes, there seems to be an overriding sense of concern that policies in Singapore favour the rich. However unwitting this may be, the Government should not ignore these nagging worries. At the end of the day, the biggest voter base in Singapore is the middle class. Alienate them at your own peril!
Despite the doom and gloom of global hard times ahead, a recent announcement has given Singaporeans some cause to celebrate – Singapore has apparently dethroned Hong Kong to become Asia’s top financial centre—and the third in the world behind New York and London. While this is welcomed news, the finer details will remain to be seen. How will this boost non-financial sector jobs in Singapore, and to what extent will Singaporeans benefit from this boost? Will this mean that more Singaporeans benefit, or does this mean that the rich will become even richer?
In a trend that seems to suggest that Singapore is a haven for the rich comes reports that tycoons from Myanmar who have been placed under international sanctions have been living the high life in Singapore.
For example, Tay Za who lives in a three-story villa on Sentosa Island (one of the two houses his family owns in Singapore). It would also seem that high-end sports car and duffel bags stuffed with cash on trips to Marina Bay Sands casino are also part of the jet set life that these sanctioned tycoons are living.
But how did they find their way into Singapore despite the sanctions that hang over their heads? We all know that people who are facing sanctions are not supposed to fly around freely or enter countries that are ‘friendly’ to the USA or the UK (the countries that generally impose sanctions against businessmen and politicians).
In a lengthy article exposing the fabulous lifestyle of the wanted tycoons in Singapore, Bloomberg says that Singapore has long been a haven for sanctioned Myanmese businessmen, including Tay Za.
Despite the initial US-imposed sanctions in 2007, he has continued to be able to live and work in Singapore. He has established about 10 businesses with operations in the aviation, teak, and palm oil industries in Singapore.
Does this mean that in Singapore, we have an official policy of only “money talks”?