https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...y-tariffs-6-9/
1 July 2018 – a Sunday with double price hikes in water (15%) and electricity tariffs (6.9%)
Published on 2018-07-02 by Thomas Loh
For most Singaporeans, the weekends have been a time for family bonding and rest.
Yet starting from 1 July, they will find that merely resting at home will cost more than yesterday (30 Jun). This is because the 2nd phrase of the 30% water hike will kick in, while electricity tariffs for the Q3 2018 will be 6.9% higher than the previous quarter.
Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat first announced a 30% water hike in his budget speech in Feb 2017. The increase was due to “update our water prices to reflect the latest costs of water supply”. According to the PUB, it costs $1.3 billion a year to operate Singapore’s water system, up from $500 million in 2000.
While there may be an increase in operating costs, a TOC contributor wrote last year that the whole issue of water price increase essentially stemmed from overpopulation which depleted Singapore’s existing water supply which then necessitated more expensive means of water production.
Phillip Ang – a blogger who has been advocating for government transparency – researched into the matter and found that the annual profit for SP has been making an annual profit of almost $1 billion a year for the past 13 years.
Despite such massive profits, HDB households will pay $5 to $8 more a month for their water bills with this second stage increase.
Alternative political parties have expressed strong disagreement over this matter. The Singapore Democratic Party has called this “taking advantage” of Singaporeans, considering that there are already 3 layers of tax – a Waterborne Fee, a Water Conservation Tax and a 7% GST levied on top of these 2 taxes.
On the other side of the coin, this would be the 3rd consecutive quarter in which electricity tariffs have increased. In Q1 2018, the tariffs were $0.2156 cents per Kilowatt hour, while Singaporeans will see themselves paying $0.2365 cents per Kilowatt hour now, or a 9.6% increase in 6 months.
Yet according to the Energy Market Authority in 2016, 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated using natural gas. In a separate blog post, Ang noted that natural gas prices were largely unchanged since a year ago and asked “why is PAP still justifying electricity tariff increase with increase in oil price instead of natural gas”?
According to a commentary by research associates Allan Loi and Nur Azha Putra, gas imports are typically pegged to oil prices as they lack an established pricing benchmark. Given the nexus between oil prices and gas tariffs, they predicted that the tariffs “could rise to beyond 23 cents per kWh for this upcoming quarter”.
They advised that “households and businesses should prepare for yet another quarter of an increase in electricity tariffs - since oil prices already started to move up since mid-2017”.
Already netizens are feeling the pinch:
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...r-raising-gst/
PM Lee said PAP mad to raise GST in GE2015 but now says they’re giving notice for raising GST
Published on 2018-05-21 by Correspondent
On Sat (19 May), PM Lee rushed to KL and managed to talk to the new Malaysian PM Mahathir for half an hour. PM Lee went to KL to personally congratulate Dr Mahathir Bin Mohamad for his coalition’s historic win at the recent Malaysian GE14.
After the meeting, PM Lee was interviewed by reporters. When asked if Malaysia’s move to abolish the GST would make it harder for Singapore government to sell its GST hike to Singaporeans, PM Lee said that the circumstances are different.
PM Lee stressed that his Government is taking the planned GST hike “very seriously”.
“We’ve given a lot of notice. I think there’s time to explain and there’s time to work out how exactly we will make sure that Singaporeans are given the right support in order to be able to live with the new tax,” he said.
PM Lee at GE 2015: PAP mad to raise taxes if got strong mandate
During the election campaigning at Singapore’s GE 2015, PM Lee also “gave notice” that it would not raise taxes if the PAP won with a strong mandate. He rubbished claims that PAP would reverse policies if they garnered strong votes. He said his government “did not play such games with voters”.
At the time, he was referring to WP’s comments that PAP could change “its mind anytime”. WP had raised the possibility of an increase in GST if PAP won with a strong mandate.
PM Lee said during GE 2015, “I think it’s a strange psychology to think that this is a government which is only dying to do bad things to people… Do we look like that?”
He added that PAP would be “mad” to raise taxes just because it had garnered a certain percentage of the votes.
“Raising, adjusting taxes is a very big decision. You consider it carefully, you discuss it thoroughly, and you do it only when you absolutely have to,” he said.
“What will make you need to raise GST? Profligate spending and irresponsible, unsustainable plans. That is what will hurt and require you to raise taxes and GST.”
As things turned out, PAP did win with a very strong mandate in 2015 - it garnered some 70% of popular votes.
Thereafter, during the budget debate early this year, it announced that it would be raising the GST from the current 7 to 9% after 2020, although technically speaking, PAP did not raise GST during its current term of government but aims to do so in the next term, with the assumption that it will surely win in the next GE.
It has been further noted that the announcement to raise GST came on the back of huge surpluses generated in FY2016 (surplus $5.2 billion) and FY2017 (surplus of $9.6 billion).
In fact, looking at historical data, out of the last 21 years (FY1997 to FY2017), Singapore registered 15 years of operating surpluses vs 6 years of operating deficits.
If government land sales were to be thrown in, in accordance with IMF way of calculating fiscal surpluses or deficits, it would be 21 vs 0 - 21 years of solid surpluses for Singapore.
But PM Lee would still want to raise GST in any case. His father once told civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow years ago, “What’s wrong with collecting more money?”
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...es-will-go-up/
PUB Assistant Chief Executive: I don’t know if water prices will go up
Published on 2018-07-05 by Correspondent
In an interview with Channel NewsAsia which was published yesterday (‘Need more water? PUB aims to produce more with same amount of resources’, 4 Jul), Public Utilities Board (PUB)’s assistant chief executive Harry Seah talked about investing in Research &Development (R&D) to double the amount of water by 2060 to meet demand.
PUB wants to double water production by then, with the “same energy and waste footprint”. To achieve this, investing in R&D is necessary.
For instance in desalination, PUB has invested in electro-deionisation (EDI) technology, which uses an electric field to extract dissolved salts from seawater. Beyond EDI, PUB is also pouring resources into other water technologies ranging from electrical fields to cell membranes.
“The price of energy is going to go up,” Seah said. “If you don’t do anything today, the cost of producing water is going to go up.”
When asked if the technological innovations would help keep water prices stable, Seah said “we do our part through efficiency to drag it (out) as long as possible, that’s the best I can do”.
But water prices have already gone up. Since 1 July, the price of water has gone up 30 per cent following a second water price hike this month. Last year, Finance Minister Heng Swee Kiat told Parliament that the government needs to increase water prices to “reflect the latest costs of water supply”.
Seah continued, “Whether the price will go up, I don’t know, but we can try our best to make our water affordable to the public.” He also highlighted that water prices would depend on other factors like manpower costs.
“Basically, we have to look at it from the point of view of sustainability, besides dollar and cents.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComplainKing
Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying ???
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155318627736688&set=p.10155318627 736688&type=3&theater
Chong Win
26 June
this Lee Hong Chuan will be the next contender at Hougang….his picture is always in flyer in whatever event at hougang community club….i thought hougang belongs to WP ?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155774432793931&set=p.10155774432 793931&type=3&theater
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...s-dr-mahathir/
New heads of Malaysian GLCs should not expect big salaries, says Dr Mahathir
Published on 2018-07-03 by Danisha Hakeem
Under the new Pakatan Harapan government, those who have been appointed to spearhead Malaysian government linked-companies (GLCs) should no longer expect to receive big salaries.
Speaking to Malaysian media at the end of his two-day visit to Jakarta on an ASEAN tour on 30 June, Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that while their salaries will not be big, there is a possibility of granting heads of GLCs big bonuses in the event that they perform well.
He said that in the previous government, “we found [that] those appointed were chosen not because of their abilities in business or management, but due to being party supporters.”
“They were inefficient, but were paid high salaries. We found projects under them had failed or were not profitable,” he added.
He declined to name the GLCs as there are too many of them.
Dr Mahathir said that the new government will hire professionals who have had previous experience in running companies to run the GLCs, and will ensure that said professionals are not politically-linked.
“At any time (they are involved), action will be taken,” he added.
It is understood that among the government-linked companies (GLCs), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH) and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) are expected to see changes in the nearest future, after the retirement of Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar as chairman of Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), according to a report by The Star Online.
LTH is headed by its group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Datuk Seri Johan Abdullah, while LTAT’s chieftain is Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, who is also Boustead Holdings Bhd’s Deputy Chairman and group Managing Director.
In 2015, LTH purchased a 1.55-acre parcel in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) project from scandal-ridden 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), which gave rise to speculations that the deal was made for the purpose of bailing out 1MDB.
Lodin, meanwhile, was appointed LTAT’s CEO in 1982. He joined Boustead in 1984 and became the company’s Managing Director about seven years later.
He was appointed Chairman of 1MDB, but had stepped down in 2016 after the Public Accounts Committee’s tabling of its audit report in the Dewan Rakyat.
On Jun 29, PNB announced that former Bank Negara Malaysia Governor, Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz will replace Wahid as PNB’s chairman, which took effect on July 1.
Commenting on Zeti’s appointment, Wahid said that he believes that Zeti and members of the board “will be able to continue leading PNB to a higher level of success”.
Wahid’s resignation was one of the changes that took place in the upper levels of some of the more prominent GLCs. This is in line with the aims of reformation under the Pakatan Harapan government.
According to The Star Online, “the heads started rolling” on May 14 when Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad resigned from his position as Chairman of the politically-linked Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA).
On the same day, Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah’s contract as Treasury Secretary-General was axed. He was subsequently transferred to the Public Service Department. Irwan has since stepped down from board positions of companies under the Ministry of Finance.
The following week saw LTH’s Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim step down as Chairman.
The resignation of Bank Negara’s governor Tan Sri Muhammad Ibrahim soon followed. His resignation took place only weeks after queries were made regarding the central bank’s purchase of land to bail out 1MDB.
Other significant resignations related to GLCs in recent times included that of Telekom Malaysia Bhd’s group, CEO Datuk Seri Mohammed Shazalli Ramly, and Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (MRCB)’s Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din, the developer of KL Sentral.
Additionally, Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) independent non-executive director Datuk Mohd Omar Mustapha had also tendered his resignation on June 1.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan had stepped down from his position as the chairman of Petronas, while Bursa Malaysia CEO Datuk Seri Tajuddin Atan could also be replaced before his term ends in March next year.
Professor of Political Economy at Faculty of Economics & Administration at the University of Malaya, Edmund Terence Gomez wrote in a letter to The Star Online that “institutional reforms can be formulated to ensure accountable and transparent governance of the companies”.
He also mentioned that “power has to be devolved to key oversight institutions such as Bank Negara, the Securities Commission and opposition-led parliamentary committees”.
He also highlighted the role of reviewing legislation on “how statutory bodies, holding companies and foundations function”.
Gomez’s key message in his letter appears to be that above all, the government has to have significant control over the workings of a GLC in order to avoid any form of inappropriate concentration of power or wealth by select individuals or stakeholders:
“[…] the government would need to retain ownership of GLCs in utilities, banking, oil and gas, defence, plantations, airport services and ports.
The transfer of ownership of huge firms in these sectors to private investors may not serve the nation’s interest.“
He concluded his letter by highlighting the potentially beneficial role of GLCs in Malaysia’s economy:
“[…] it must be considered that GLCs have played an important developmental role, creating a vibrant domestic privately-owned enterprise base, promoting mechanisms to encourage private firms to venture into new economic sectors, and enhancing the development of rural- and niche-based enterprises. GLCs must still play this role.”
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...e-in-the-govt/
The curious case of the GST Increase and the trust that PAP expects people to have in the govt
Published on 2018-07-03 by Ghui
The cat is now out of the bag and government has pretty much tacitly confirmed that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is set to increase from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 to 2025. Given official statements issued by the government before the General Elections of 2016 (GE2016), the government appeared to have unequivocally denied the possibility of a GST increase.
In public statements, they made clear that the government plans ahead and that there is enough from income tax not to have to increase GST. It seems therefore rather strange that a government who professes to plan ahead did not seem to have foreseen the need to announce a raise in GST in just under 3 years? So much for planning ahead!
Either that or the government has very cleverly planned the timing of their announcements to reassure the public before GE2016 to ensure maximum vote share. Neither scenario is very reassuring.
In considering which scenario it is, it is important to note that there are slight differences between the 2 purported identical statements issued by the government.
In the third hyperlinked article “unequivocally denied the possibility of a GST increase”, there is an additional line inserted at the end of the article stating : “This article is accurate as of Aug 2015.” This crucial statement is missing in the second hyperlinked article “statements”.
Incidentally, this second hyperlinked article is found in the “archives” section of the Gov.SG website which suggests that this was the original article which has now been amended to insert the disclaimer. When was this disclaimer added and why?
Is this a fudging exercise to prevent the government of being accused of misleading the public about GST increments pre GE2016? Or was it to rectify an oversight by the government?
Also, why is there such a wide time period for when GST is meant to increase? Between 2021 to 2025? That is 4 years! Given that the government allegedly plans ahead, it should surely know with greater certainty when GST will need to be raised? Why the 4 year period then?
Given that our next election is set for sometime 2020, is this raise (which will coincidentally takes place after the election) meant to ensure that the PAP gets the votes before increasing the tax? In fact, by giving such a wide spectrum for timing, the People’s Action Party (PAP) can in fact potentially squeeze in 2 more general elections before finally increasing the GST - thereby ensuring the maximum chance of killing 2 birds with one stone. I.e. Winning 2 elections and still getting their GST increase.
Whichever way I look at it, there appears to be some fudge going on. Did the PAP know ahead of GE2016 that they would have to increase the GST? Did they choose not to divulge this to the public because they did not want it to affect their vote share? Why is there a 4 year period between when the taxes will be increased? Don’t the public deserve greater certainty?
Giving themselves such a wide berth seems to give rise to the suspicion that this will somehow be used to ensure that the government can keep its options wide open to ensure the best result for them.
Addressing the GST issue in Malaysia and how it played in Malaysia’s recent General Election at the end of the President’s address, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that voters have to trust the government to do the right thing on their behalf, even when it is painful.
He noted that the country will need to spend more – on healthcare, defence, education, or something else – and if revenues are not enough, it will have no choice but to raise taxes. Then, the government must convince the population that it is raising taxes for a good reason, for the right reason. And whether the voters accept that will depend not just on the arguments, but also crucially on whether they trust the government.
Other than going back against its earlier promise about not raising GST, PM Lee’s point about trust seems to be pitted against the situation where Singapore announced a surplus of $9.6 billion for FY2017 and at the same time, say it needs to increase GST hike to 9 per cent because Singapore has to ensure revenue is sufficient to meet the country’s spending.
Without a strong alternative media and opposition politicians to challenge these things such as the 9% GST hike, we will never know the truth and what to trust. Is this the society we want to live in?
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...n-a-walkabout/
Everyone and anyone is entitled to not engage with a politician on a walkabout
Published on 2018-07-02 by Ghui
I see that some drama erupted at Minister in the Prime Minister’s office, Indranee Rajah’s 1 July 2018 walkabout in Tiong Bahru Market. While I was not present and cannot independently verify what version of events is true, I will give both parties the benefit of doubt and presume for the sake of this article that the truth is somewhere in between.
Although the accounts of how things transpired differ, the basic facts that are not in dispute are as follows:
A man who did not want to engage was indeed approached by Ms Rajah; and
The issue of nationality was raised.
Everyone has a right to privacy and a private citizen not wanting to be disturbed is perfectly acceptable. Rajah herself accepts this. Why then would someone post on Facebook about what should really be a normal run of the mill occurrence? Is it because we still perceive our elected politicians as somehow “above” us in standing and that refusing to engage with them is some kind of act of rebellion?
If that is indeed the attitude we have (whether conditioned or otherwise) then we ought to change it. All citizens reserve the right to have a meal in peace. There is no need to entertain someone even if you don’t feel like so doing when this person has shown up unannounced just because that person is in a position of power. We can’t expect the government to treat us like equals when a man refusing to engage is considered big news.
Secondly, why was the issue of nationality raised? The minister has admitted to asking people on their nationalities but I still struggle to see why that question needs to be asked? Would a person’s nationality affect how she would treat them? Would she spend less time with them? I just don’t understand why there is a need to ask such a question at all. It just seems rather odd and leads me to wonder if she assumed the man was not Singaporean simply because he dared to not engage?
If this is indeed the case then the government really needs to readjust its own perception of itself. They are elected to serve us. Being a politician is a profession like any other. It does not make you some kind of super star that guarantees public fawning.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...mains-healthy/
New Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong: Overall public trust in PAP Govt remains healthy
Published on 2018-07-02 by Correspondent
In the long interview with Channel News Asia which was published today (1 Jul), new Senior Minister of State for Law and Health said that the overall public trust in the PAP Government has remained healthy.
Mr Edwin Tong said, “A lot more effort has gone into revamping our feedback mechanism. Every single one of the MPs must know the ground well enough so that we don’t only end up knowing around elections that there’s unhappiness about this policy or that policy,”
He said he does make an effort to recruit and hear from grassroots leaders of diverse backgrounds who are willing to give MPs an honest picture of ground sentiment.
“Going by what I see on the ground, I think people appreciate that the Government spends time addressing the unhappiness, whether it is in terms of social transfers or immigration policies. I think that has made a difference over the years.”
He admits the transport system has been “a constant bane” but it’ll be sorted out with time.
“As with all functioning and mature democracies, the trust level ebbs and flows on different issues. But I think the overall trust in the Government has remained healthy. It’s a gut feel I have while internalising everything that I see, everything that I hear, talking to people within or outside of my constituency,” he said.
CareShield Life
He concedes that on specific issues “more could be done” in terms of communication. CareShield Life is one example.
“CareShield Life for example is meant as a good policy but people are asking if we’re making money out of it. The Government could afford to explain why we’re doing it and to allay such concerns,” he said.
“We’ll see all that come to light when we debate the issue in Parliament but I do think more could be done to bring home the key messages in a way that the average Singaporean can better appreciate.”
CareShield Life is another mandatory insurance scheme hatched by the PAP government requiring Singaporeans to join when they reach 30. It is supposed to provide “better protection against the uncertainty of long-term care costs”.
In any case, going by Tong’s confidence of the healthy trust bestowed on the PAP government by Singaporean public, it looks like Tong and his compatriots in People’s Action Party (PAP) should have nothing to worry about in the next coming General Election.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-for-them-too/
MPs not only pay $365 yearly for HDB carpark, some have policemen reserving carpark lot for them too
Published on 2018-06-30 by Correspondent
It has been reported that elected Members of Parliament (MPs) pay only S$365 for an annual HDB carpark permit. This works out to S$1 per day parking at HDB carparks. The huge concession is supposed to allow them to park at HDB estates when doing constituency work and at Parliament House too.
The Ministry of National Development (MND) said on Mon (25 Jun) that the rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies. It also added that Non-constituency MPs and Nominated MPs are not given this permit.
For HDB residents, the monthly parking charge is S$80 for surface car parks and S$110 for sheltered ones (that is, S$960 and S$1,320 annually).
Grace Fu explains
Earlier this month, Ms Grace Fu, Leader of the House, wrote to ST in a letter, stating that MPs do pay for their parking at Parliament House after an ST article implied that they don’t. But she avoided mentioning the special S$365 HDB carpark fee which the MPs pay.
She said, “Elected MPs who drive pay for an annual permit that allows them to park in Housing Board carparks, in order to do their constituency work.”
“This payment, which Parliament deducts from the MPs’ allowances, is deemed to cover the occasions when they park at Parliament House to fulfil their duties,” she added.
Police helps ‘chope’ HDB parking lot
Not only do MPs get a special HDB carpark rate of S$365 per year when doing their constituency work, it appears that they, especially those political office holders like Ms Fu herself, also have policemen helping to “reserve” HDB parking lots for them, before they arrive at the HDB estates to do “constituency work”.
About one and a half years ago, Ms Fu was caught on camera by a netizen, showing that she had parked her Mercedes at a season parking lot.
It was reported that the netizen who took the photos was at the HDB car park waiting for his wife when he saw a man standing at a red season parking lot ‘choping’ the slot. The netizen went up to the man, who then identified himself as a policeman. Amazingly, the policeman explained that he was reserving the red colored parking lot for a “VIP”.
The netizen later moved back to his car to continue waiting for his wife. When the VIP arrived to park the Mercedes at the lot reserved by the policeman, it turned out that the VIP was Ms Fu.
At the time, the public didn’t know that MPs are given this special S$365 per year HDB parking permit and was angry that Ms Fu was parking at a season parking lot meant for residents. But now that the news of an MP only needs to pay S$365 for an annual HDB parking permit, she, like other MPs, would be entitled to park at the HDB season lots too.
Teachers to pay for parking at school premises
Meanwhile, teachers at all national schools and junior colleges will have to start paying from 1 Aug, when they park their vehicles on the school premises to work.
To park in uncovered lots, teachers will have to pay for $75 a month during the school term and $15 a month during the school holidays in June, November and December. While, those who wish to park in sheltered lots, have to pay for $100 a month during the school term and $20 a month during school holidays.
The implementation of the parking fees for the teachers at schools, sparked an outcry from the members of the public, asking whether is there a need to charge parking to teachers for carpark lots which would not be used by the public.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...d-help-hyflux/
SP Group’s announcement of increase in electricity tariffs should help Hyflux
Published on 2018-06-30 by Correspondent
Yesterday (29 Jun), SP Group announced that electricity tariffs will increase by an average of 6.9 per cent or 1.50 cents per kWh from Jul 1 to Sep 30 this year, compared to the previous quarter.
“The increase is mainly due to the higher cost of natural gas for electricity generation compared to the previous quarter,” SP Group said.
For households, the electricity tariff will increase from 22.15 to 23.65 cents per kWh.
The announcement of SP Group has come at an opportune time for the beleaguered Hyflux, which has recently obtained a court protection from its creditors.
In a public statement last month, Hyflux Chairman and Group CEO Olivia Lum blamed the depressed electricity prices in Singapore for her company’s woes.
Tuaspring dragging Hyflux’s net profit down
In particular, Tuaspring, an integrated water and power plant, has been dragging Hyflux’s net profit down. Hyflux posted its first ever annual loss last year since listing, and continued losing into the first quarter of this year. It reported a net loss of S$22.2 million in the three months ended March 31, with net debt surged to 165 times EBITDA earnings from about 32 times at the end of last year.
Ms Lum, who was hailed from Malaysia said, “One of our landmark projects is Tuaspring, the first Integrated Water and Power Project in Asia, which is an important track record to boost the group’s solution offering to its municipal clients.”
“This innovative project which contributes significantly to our nation’s water security, has, in recent years, not escaped the impact of depressed electricity prices in Singapore,” she added.
“As a result, 2017 marked the first full year of losses in our operating history. Although improvements in wholesale electricity prices have reduced losses in the last few months, a sharper rebound in prices is necessary to restore the group to its previous levels of profitability.”
She said that operating in a capital-intensive industry, Hyflux has always tried to divest their completed projects in order to recycle capital into new investments. However, plans to divest Tuaspring and another project in China “have taken longer given the prevailing market”.
“This has added stress to the business,” she acknowledged.
Now that SP Group has announced an increase in electricity tariffs for the next quarter, it should spell good news for Ms Lum.
Assuming that the electricity tariffs will continue to “rebound” sharply in prices in the coming quarters, Hyflux should surely be restored to its “previous levels of profitability” and Ms Lum would be smiling again.
