-
medisave life premium ( another way to force us to pay )
-
car park fees
-
marriage fees
-
SC & C ( lift still breakdown )
-
medical fees
-
school fees for non local students .
-
transport fares ( train service still horrible )
-
Various vehicle fees .
-
carbon tax
-
Cigarette duties to increase 10% immediate .
-
2nd round of water price increase expected this year .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/gove...21-2025-period
Singapore Budget 2018: GST to be hiked to 9% in “earlier” part of 2021-2025 period
THE government plans to raise the goods and services tax (GST) by two percentage points to 9 per cent from 7 per cent, sometime in the period from 2021 to 2025, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said on Monday.
“The exact timing will depend on the state of the economy, how much our expenditures grow, and how buoyant our existing taxes are,” said Mr Heng.
“But I expect that we will need to do so earlier rather than later in the period.”
The increase in revenue in the government coffers from the GST hike will translate to almost 0.7 per cent of GDP per year.
“This GST increase is necessary because even after exploring various options to manage our future expenditures through prudent spending, saving and borrowing for infrastructure, there is still a gap,” said Mr Heng.
SEE ALSO: Singapore Budget 2018: Strengthening the foundations
Singapore will continue to absorb GST on publicly subsidised education and healthcare. It will also enhance the permanent GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme when the GST is increased.
The government will make a S$2 billion top-up to the GSTV Fund to support these payments. Currently, the government disburses about S$800 million per year from the GSTV Fund.
The government will also implement an offset package for a period for help Singaporeans adjust to the GST hike. Lower and middle-income households will receive more support, said Mr Heng.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
https://sbfsg.world/showthrea...=669727&page=3
Please do not belittle MDA staff. MDA staff are well paid and expect same salaries as Disney executives even though MDA has zero media innovations past 60 years compare to Disney staff. MDA staff is good in copying and paste media innovations though. Hard work.
https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/mda...-condo.153621/
https://everythingalsocomplain.com/2...-corals-condo/
MDA CEO buying $10 million Corals condo
Posted on June 2, 2013 by gdy2shoez
From ‘2 Corals at Keppel Bay units sold for over $10m each’, 30 May 2013, article by Melissa Tan, ST Money
DESPITE flat demand in the luxury market so far this year, at least two condominium units with a price tag of over $10 million each were sold over the past fortnight. Keppel Land told the Singapore Exchange on Tuesday that family members of Mrs Koh-Lim Wen Gin, a former Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) chief planner, bought the units at its upcoming project Corals at Keppel Bay. Mrs Koh has been an independent director of Keppel Land since January 2010.
One of the buyers is her daughter, Ms Koh Lin-Net, the chief executive of the Media Development Authority. Ms Koh took office last November and prior to that was deputy secretary of trade at the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Ms Koh and her husband Lawrence Low bought a 3,477 sq ft four-bedder at Corals for slightly below $10.1 million, which works out to around $2,901 per sq ft for the second-floor unit.
The option to purchase is dated May 19.
There’s nothing wrong with stat board senior management buying expensive property, of course. What’s interesting about this piece of news is the sheer timing of it and how surprisingly informative it is, in light of MDA’s licensing scheme which requires news sites to fork out $50k performance bonds. That’s $500k in total for 10 websites, just enough for a 4-room HDB flat (but not a condo).
While there are angry bloggers out there complaining about MDA’s rules and how it would impede internet freedom via the #FreeMyInternet movement, it’s ironic how it’s in fact the mainstream media itself which leaked the possibility that the MDA CEO is a multi-millionaire, though the article was tucked quietly in the ‘Money’ section. With such earning power, I’m surprised they didn’t do a better job with the Senior Management rap some years back, like hiring Jay-Z to write and produce it. It could have been called ‘Empire State of MDA’.
According to the Online Citizen, ‘the BLOGGING community – COLLECTIVELY called #FreeMyInternet’, will be organising a protest at Hong Lim Park and an online ‘blackout’ for 24 hours on 8 June where you’re supposed to blanket your website in darkness and make Malaysian protesters wonder if they’re missing out on something. Not ALL bloggers or netizens feel that strongly nor are they pissing their pants about this imminent threat of Internet Panopticon Armageddon, so I’m not sure why TOC decided to drag the whole blogosphere into it.
Unless, of course, I’m not considered part of that ‘community’ but merely a fringe keyboard radical who needs to post tasteful homemade erotica pictures in order to generate enough hits to qualify for MDA licensing.
Mr Brown has become a part of it, naturally. With his musical talent, the #FreeMyInternet cause could at least turn from shouty media activism to funding poor families without Internet and even climb the pop charts like Band Aid’s ‘Do they Know It’s Christmas’ in the event that the outdoor protest or blackout fails. I’m actually hoping for that song to happen nonetheless *fingers crossed*.
I would support #FreetheWorld, #FreetheAnimals, #FreeMyCPF and #FreeBreakfastDay but I’m not sure if our Internet desperately needs ‘freeing’ like how one needs to emancipate a tortured slave. It’s not like I have to key in my Singpass whenever I google ‘How to Create a Homemade Landmine’ (A #FreeMyInternet supporter would whisper in a gloomy tone with slow wagging finger ‘Not yet…’).
It doesn’t seem that urgent for a nobody in the ‘community’ like myself to waste a good weekend protesting when I could be at the World Street Food Festival eating instead, and even if I DID go there and toss some slogans about, I would STILL get lawyers’ letters accusing me of defamation if I blogged drunk, with or without MDA’s crappy rules.
But just to show how ‘free’ the internet already is as we speak, I did some online background checks on CEO Koh Lin-Net for the benefit of anyone thinking of signing the petition because they’re concerned that there will come a day when everytime they open a browser, they’re instantly redirected to a mandatory login homepage with the PAP/MDA logo on it and some ominous marching music in the background which you’re forced to listen to for 20 seconds before you can do anything. Like those Youtube ads.
Koh, an alumni of CHIJ St Nicholas, confessed to ‘skipping classes’ and helping smuggle BEER into school while in Hwa Chong JC. She was also formerly a member of the Computer Club, a head prefect, and Deputy Secretary (Trade) of MTI.
We also know that just before she took over the reins at MDA, Deputy CEO Michael Yap unexpectedly resigned for reasons unknown. An IT guy and adjunct professor of Engineering, Yap was the ‘key driver’ behind the SingaporeONE initiative which made our country the FIRST in the WORLD to have national broadband access.
He also spoke at a TEDxUSC conference in 2010 and strikes me as the progressive, visionary tech-evangelist type. Reminds me of super-pastor Kong Hee too. In the MDA rap video he’s the one in the hip-hop garb and slickest moves. This is one officer who put the ‘Development’ in MDA, unlike what’s happening now, whereby the title ‘Media Restriction and Sanitation Authority’ would be more appropriate. Or MRSA (snigger away med nerds!)
For someone who spent $10 million on an apartment, Koh is well versed of the impermanence of material possessions. In a 2007 review of Herman Hesse’s ‘Siddhartha’, she says:
Now that I’m the midst of the journey, I think it’s a good reminder not to get caught up in material things; that material things at the end of the day will not help fulfill you.
Lee Wei Ling would concur. Such insight really explains buying a humble Corals unit then. She could afford a $300 million house for all you know.
Is our government overpaid? It seems a lot of problems these days are settled by ourselves and not using government services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ibanezjem555
High pay for a jia liao bee Minister is totally against good governance and meritocracy in Spore.
The 2018 Budget is lacklustre and totally unimaginative. It is easy to give angpow and raise taxes. Who can`t do this type of half past six budget ? There is no incentives for industrial growth other than wage credits. How about incentives for renewable energy, new growth industries and Foreign Direct Investments ? Decreasing cost of rents ? Decreasing and deflating prices of fresh flats (a case of ownself of tax ownself ?)
First step is to freeze all Ministers and sPermSec pay bcos they cannot think of good solution for our rudderless economy. Then, cut their pay slowly by 9% by 2021.
Half the expenditure to PA will cut budget by another $200mil. Review the expenditure for all CCC.
Publish top 50 wage earners of Temasek and let accounts be audited by independent third party.
Launch inquiries into AIM and Keppel to ascertain exact amount of public money lost.
But.. aiya.. no diff lah.. 70% still vote White Monkeys.. cest la vie..
stardawn stardawn is offline
Samster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 135
My Reputation:
Points: 985 / Power: 8
stardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to beholdstardawn is a splendid one to behold
Re: ‘Leaders must be able to take criticism, acknowledge mistakes’: PM Lee
And the prices in Singkieland keep going up .
So far they have raised the following :
6 ) COE fees keep on going up and up
7 ) ERP fees
8 ) electric fees
8 ) gas fees
9 ) water prices this one the most siong . 30%
12 ) ITE school fees
15 ) estate stamp duty increased for those private residential property over S$1 million .
16 ) GST to increase by 2%
Please free to add if I miss out any .
Our salaries remain the same but expenses keep on going up .
When the US is cutting its taxes ; here in Sinkieland the taxes will be going up .
Our spending power will get lesser and inflation expected to go up .
This is the problem when the ruling party have a majority mandate in parliament .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
Why are you talking to yourself ? Of course the government is overpaid . But then that is to prevent corruption. Why aren’t you highlighting the latest budget 2018 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greyfaced
You agree that high pay is to prevent corruption ?
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew called for a sense of proportion yesterday, pointing out that the annual wage bill for ministers and all office holders is $46 million - or just 0.022 per cent of Singapore’s total economic output.
It was an ‘absurdity’, he said, for Singaporeans to quarrel over whether ministers collectively should be paid $10 million or $20 million more, when an economy worth $210 billion was at stake
‘The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government,’ he said in his first comments on impending salary increases for ministers and top civil servants. ‘You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again.’
Singaporeans’ asset values would also disappear, he warned, adding that ‘your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries’.
He said the present system of benchmarking ministers’ pay to top private sector salaries was ‘completely above board’ and allowed the Government to recruit ‘some of the very best’ to lead the country
When it was put to him that people hoped for leaders who were willing to make sacrifices and who were not there for the money, he replied that these were ‘admirable sentiments’. But he added that ‘we live in the real world’.
His bottom line: if the Government could not pay competitive salaries, Singapore would not be able to compete and ‘we’re not going to live well’.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greyfaced
You agree that high pay is to prevent corruption ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/wo...ref=leekuanyew
Singapore’s Highly Paid Officials Get Richer
By SETH MYDANS
Published: April 10, 2007
Correction Appended
SINGAPORE, April 9 — How much money does it take to keep a government minister in Singapore happy?
The government says a million dollars is not enough, and on Monday it announced a 60 percent increase in ministers’ salaries, to an average of $1.9 million Singapore dollars, or about $1.3 million, by next year.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s pay will jump to about $2 million — five times the $400,000 earned by President Bush.
In this nation where the bottom line truly is the bottom line, the argument goes, you have to pay to get them and you have to pay to keep them clean.
“If we don’t do that, in the long term the government system will slowly crumble and collapse,” Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean told reporters last month. “Corruption will set in, and we will become like many other countries, and face the problems that many other countries face,” The Straits Times, Singapore’s largest-circulation newspaper, quoted him as saying.
In announcing the pay increases on Monday, Mr. Teo, who also oversees the civil service, said: “We don’t want pay to be the reason for people to join us. But we also don’t want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us.”
Singapore’s pay system was created in 1994 by the nation’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew. It pegged the salaries of government ministers and top civil servants to the money they might earn at the top of the private sector.
Under that formula, ministers are to be paid two-thirds of the median of the top eight earners in each of six professions: accounting, law, banking, engineering, multinational companies and local manufacturing.
There has been no public sign of discontent among the men and women who run Singapore, but last month the prime minister noted that they were earning just 55 percent of that benchmark. Hence the raise for the three dozen men and women who run Singapore.
Defending the system against an unusual public yelp of pain, Mr. Lee, whose title is minister mentor, painted a horrifying picture of a Singapore governed by ministers who earn no more than ministers elsewhere.
“Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is,” he said. “Your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk, and our women will become maids in other people’s countries.”
It is true that Singapore has one of the most efficient and corruption-free governments in the world. Transparency International, a private monitoring agency, recently listed it as the fifth most corruption-free nation of 163 surveyed.
It is Asia’s second-richest country after Japan, with a gross domestic product per capita of about $31,000. The first Prime Minister Lee said it could well afford to pay its leaders top dollar.
The average Singaporean earns roughly $3,000 a month, and the government has voiced concern over a widening gap between rich and poor. The ministers’ pay was approved three months before the sales tax is to be increased by 2 percent.
Talk of the pay raise drew criticism here that included letters to newspapers and an online petition that has more than 800 signatures.
“I am sure Enron and Worldcom paid more than top dollar for their top executives, and look where their companies are now — six feet under,” Mohamad Rosle Ahmad wrote to the editor of The Straits Times.
The elder Mr. Lee said naysayers needed a reality check. “I say you have no sense of proportion; you don’t know what life is about,” he said.
“The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government,” he added. “You get that alternative, and you’ll never put Singapore together again.”
The Straits Times quoted him as saying his current salary as minister mentor was about $1.8 million.
Some Singaporeans suggested that other motivations should also come into play for government jobs.
“What about other redeeming intangibles such as honor and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?” asked Hussin Mutalib, a political science professor at the National University of Singapore, in a Straits Times online forum.
Carolyn Lim, a prominent writer, suggested in an essay that Singapore needed a little more heart to go along with its hard head.
“To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains,” she wrote.
The minister mentor brushed aside such concerns. “Those are admirable sentiments,” he said. “But we live in a real world.”
Correction: April 13, 2007
An article on Tuesday about the high salaries of Singapore government officials misstated the given name of a prominent writer who suggested in an essay that comparability with the private sector should not be the only consideration in setting government salaries. She is Catherine Lim, not Carolyn.
100000 Char
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ibanezjem555
High pay for a jia liao bee Minister is totally against good governance and meritocracy in Spore.
The 2018 Budget is lacklustre and totally unimaginative. It is easy to give angpow and raise taxes. Who can`t do this type of half past six budget ? There is no incentives for industrial growth other than wage credits. How about incentives for renewable energy, new growth industries and Foreign Direct Investments ? Decreasing cost of rents ? Decreasing and deflating prices of fresh flats (a case of ownself of tax ownself ?)
First step is to freeze all Ministers and sPermSec pay bcos they cannot think of good solution for our rudderless economy. Then, cut their pay slowly by 9% by 2021.
Half the expenditure to PA will cut budget by another $200mil. Review the expenditure for all CCC.
Publish top 50 wage earners of Temasek and let accounts be audited by independent third party.
Launch inquiries into AIM and Keppel to ascertain exact amount of public money lost.
But.. aiya.. no diff lah.. 70% still vote White Monkeys.. cest la vie..
http://exchersonesusaurea.blogspot.s...p-in-1997.html
SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 2012
PAP dirty tricks against WP in 1997 revisited
J B Jeyaretnam was the target of a vicious PAP smear campaign in 1997, with DPMs Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan playing key roles
By Chong Wee Kiat
Posted on June 23, 2011 by satayclub
The year was 1997. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, having been dealt a black eye by the voters at his first general election six years ago, was eager to prevent any further losses of seats. Things were looking up for him, as the main opposition party – the Singapore Democratic Party – had apparently imploded, with its founder and icon Chiam See Tong having been ousted from the party following a series of internal disagreements. The new party leader, Dr Chee Soon Juan, had done himself no favours with an ill-conceived hunger strike to protest his sacking from the National University of Singapore.
However, the Workers’ Party apparently had other ideas. Led by the rambunctious and indefatigable J B Jeyaretnam – who became the first man to defeat the PAP since Singapore’s independence at the Anson by-election of 1981 – the WP was gunning for a Group Representation Constituency. Mr Jeyaretnam’s team for Cheng San GRC included prominent Chinese grassroots leader and lawyer Tang Liang Hong (邓亮洪). They were up against the incumbent PAP team, led by Education Minister Lee Yock Suan, and a close contest was expected. After all, this election would mark Mr Jeyaretnam’s return to politics after a decade-long absence – twice elected as MP for Anson, he was expelled from Parliament in 1986 following a conviction which he claimed was politically motivated.
Mr Goh and his cadre of PAP leaders – including Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, whose disdain for Mr Jeyaretnam was by now well-known – were dreading the thought of having five additional MPs from the WP. A decision was made in Cabinet to keep the WP candidates out of Parliament.
They pored through Mr Tang’s past speeches and singled out one that he had made way back in 1994 at a National Day celebration dinner. In the speech, Mr Tang said that he would like to see more members from the “silent majority of Chinese-educated” Singaporean stepping forward and playing a more active role in society. The then-Minister for the Environment, Teo Chee Hean, was present at the event – and he later informed his Cabinet colleagues that Mr Tang had “worked people up” over issues of language and religion, and that it was his duty to “expose” such “dangerous” people.
One by one, senior PAP leaders came out to lambast Mr Tang, claiming that he was an anti-Christian, anti-English educated Chinese chauvinist during the heat of a hotly-contested election campaign. The mainstream media was used to cast repeated attacks on Mr Tang’s character, with Senior Minister Lee leading the chorus by saying that saying that “if he’s (Tang’s) against the English-educated, he must be against the Malay-educated even more. If he is against Christianity, he must be against Islam even more because Islam represents even a deeper exclusiveness. So this approach must be destructive.”
Mr Tang responded by claiming that the remarks from the PAP leaders were lies. Immediately, he was sued for defamation by some 13 PAP MPs. Amongst them was the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam.
Together with Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Dr Tan and Prime Minister Goh led the charge in Cheng San, making it a “personal” battleground and claiming that a vote for the WP team was a vote against them. Of course, none of them were actually candidates in that particular constituency; they all all enjoyed walkovers in their respective wards.
Tang Liang Hong was bankrupted and had his property seized following the 1997 election. He entered into self-imposed exile in Australia.Angered by their tactics of heavy bombardment, Mr Tang lodged a police report, accusing the PAP leaders of criminal defamation.
Mr Jeyaretnam was handed a copy of the report during an election rally midway through his speech, and he announced to the 80,000 strong crowd that he had in his hands a police report made by Tang against “you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his people”.
Those fateful words would later become the basis for a flurry of lawsuits by the same PAP leaders against Mr Jeyaretnam, alleging that he had, by conveying the news to the crowd, implied via innuendo that the PAP MPs were all guilty of criminal acts and were therefore unfit for office. Having already sued Mr Tang for a total of $8,075,000, the PAP leaders were still baying for Mr Jeyaretnam’s blood, even though he had done nothing more than convey a simple fact to the audience.
The WP lost the election by 53,553 votes to 44,132.
******
A Mareva Injunction was soon granted against Mr Tang, freezing all of his assets including his property in Bukit Timah and all his bank accounts – as well as those of his wife. Fearing the worst, he left into self-imposed exile in Australia. He has not returned to Singapore since.
Mr Jeyaretnam was returned to Parliament as a Non-Constituency MP. He was made a bankrupt in 2001 after being unable to pay the more than $600,000 in libel damages awarded to the PAP leaders. As a result, he lost his seat in Parliament. To make a living, the former judge and senior lawyer was reduced to hawking his self-published books on the streets. He was discharged from his bankruptcy in 2008 and founded the Reform Party soon after, but died before he could make a final push to win back his Parliamentary seat.
******
What is the point of bringing up all this now?
The two Deputy Prime Ministers who were so instrumental to the battle for Cheng San and the subsequent moves to demolish Mr Tang and Mr Jeyaretnam are back in the public eye.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong is now the Prime Minister.
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam is the odds-on favourite to be elected the next President of Singapore.
Both men have re-invented themselves as politicians with a “softer” touch. Prime Minister Lee made an unprecedented apology for the failings of his administration during the general election campaign in May this year. He urged civil servants and MPs to remember that they were “servants, not masters” of the people. He said that the PAP needed to transform itself and become a more compassionate party, distancing himself from the hardline approach used under his father and then Mr Goh.
However, that still could not prevent the WP from fulfilling Mr Jeyaretnam’s unfinished dream of winning a GRC. The party won six seats in the election, deposing two cabinet ministers in the process. In addition, they won another two NCMP seats, giving them their strongest Parliamentary presence in history.
As for Dr Tan, he adopted a lower profile following the events of 1997, going on to serve another ten years as Deputy Prime Minister before retiring from politics in 2006.
He went on to become Chairman of the government-owned Singapore Press Holdings – a position reserved for PAP stalwarts and loyalists – as well as Deputy Chairman and Executive Director of the Government Investment Corporation (GIC), serving under Lee Kuan Yew.
Yesterday, he resigned from these two positions and re-emerged to announce his candidacy for the office of President – the highest office in the country. He is currently regarded as a gentlemanly, dignified politician, and the outgoing President has given a ringing endorsement of his “qualities to lead the country”.
http://exchersonesusaurea.blogspot.s...p-in-1997.html
Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan were key players in what was possibly the PAP’s darkest hour. Cheng San, and the events that followed it, represented a highly-calibrated operation to smear, discredit and demolish the PAP’s most vocal dissidents and to intimidate the voters into rejecting an alternative voice.
Not long after, both Mr Lee and Dr Tan were plaintiffs in an expertly-cheoreographed series of lawsuits designed to stifle and bankrupt their two antagonists. The case was roundly criticised by international lawyers and jurists as an abuse of the legal process, and not long after, Queen’s Counsel were barred from appearing in Singapore courts.
With Mr Lee and Dr Tan holding the two highest offices in the land, all power and authority – both legal and moral – will be vested in their hands. Though it may appear as though the leadership of Singapore has gone through a “sea change” following the watershed 2011 general election, in reality, little will have changed if Dr Tan is elected.
What about the possibility that Dr Tan may have mellowed and softened his stance? At yesterday’s press conference to announce his candidacy, he appeared to have no regrets at all about the lawsuits which he initiated, justifying them on the basis that “everyone should have the right to clear his name” after being slandered.
Though it is not likely that Dr Tan – or any other senior political figure – would want to attempt similar actions in today’s political climate, it is notable that he was a key figure behind PAP smear campaigns in the past.
Whether or not this damages his moral authority is up to the voters to decide, but seeing as the mainstream media is likely to whitewash the truth, it is important that those who are too young to remember the events of 1997 are made aware of his past track record – especially since it is a track record that he continues to stand by, up until today.
******************************
The author is a contributor who enjoys discussing politics and history with his friends at the kopitiam and office canteen. He was a resident of Cheng San GRC during the 1997 General Election and describes himself as a “hardcore” Workers’ Party supporter. He moved to Hougang in 2003.
******************************************
For background, reports, and analysis of the Tang Liang Hong incident:
The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore, Francis T. Seow, former solicitor general of Singapore (here)
Against the odds: one man’s bid for democracy, Mark Baker, Sydney Morning Herald (here)
Tang Liang Hong’s homepage, in English and Chinese (here)
Tang Liang Hong in Wikipedia (here)
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ainable-plans/
Flashback GE2015 – PM Lee: GST will increase due to profligate spending and irresponsible, unsustainable plans
Published on 2018-02-20 by Neyla Zannia
Commenting on the Budget 2018 in his Facebook page, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the budget is a strategic and integrated financial plan to build us a better future together.
“What does it mean for business? For a vibrant and innovative economy, our businesses need to grow,” PM Lee wrote.
He stressed that the Government will support businesses to innovate and build capabilities through grants and help firms grow and internationalise.
“We will continue to help firms and workers develop digital capabilities and skills to adapt to the digital economy,” he added.
He then stated that for Singapore to become a smart, green, and liveable city, the country need to reduce the carbon footprint, noting that the new carbon tax will be $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions to encourage industries and consumers to cut back on emissions.
GST increase due to profligate spending and irresponsible, unsustainable plans
In his Facebook post, PM Lee wrote, “To better look after our seniors as they age, a new Silver Generation Office will help to coordinate the social and health related services for seniors,” and noted that the Government spending will rise, especially in healthcare, infrastructure, and security.
He wrote, “While we are on sound fiscal footing, we must plan ahead to ensure that we can always afford to spend what we need.”
Addressing the Government plans to increase GST from 7% to 9% sometime between 2021 to 2025, PM wrote, “This will be done in a fair and progressive manner, and we will help households to cope with this change, especially poorer households,”
Back in Sept 2015 during the General Election, PM Lee said that the PAP would be “mad” to raise taxes just because it had garnered a certain percentage of the votes. This is in response to Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang’s comments at a rally that the PAP could change “its mind anytime”. Mr Low raised the possibility of an increase in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) after PAP wins the election.
Speaking at the ruling party’s headquarters, PM Lee said: “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 said, “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 added, “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.”
Citizens reminded of the “hong bao”
On a sweet note, PM Lee reminded citizens in his Facebook post on Tuesday that each Singaporean aged 21 and above will receive an SG Bonus of $100 - $300 in 2018, depending on their income due to better-than-expected surplus in last fiscal year,
http://www.theindependent.sg/proflig...lee-in-ge2015/
“Profligate spending and irresponsible, unsustainable plans require you to raise taxes” – PM Lee in GE2015
“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.”
This is what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the PAP Headquarters on 5 September 2015, in the middle of the 2015 general elections campaigning period.
Referring to the Workers’ Party’s suggestion then that the government would raise taxes after the election had been won, PM Lee asserted that the government “did not play such games with voters.”
According to the New Paper, he further added:
“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? Here we are, trying to do the best and needing support. And I would turn the argument and say, be careful if they give more votes to the WP.
“WP will become even more arrogant and oppressive over the rest of the parties as they are already so.”
The head of government also added that the PAP would be “mad” to raise taxes just because it received a strong mandate:
“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.
“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.”
Besides attacking the WP, the PM also cast aspersions upon the financial promises of other opposition parties, noting that their manifestos had plans to distribute funds to various groups but did not elaborate much about where these funds would come from:
“So I think when you see a manifesto like that, that’s when you must ask, where’s the money coming from?”
Just over two years after the PAP won the last general elections, PM Lee confirmed at the PAP Convention last Sunday that higher taxes are inevitable and stressed that it is a matter of when and not if taxes will be hiked.
When claims that the government would raise taxes erupted in 2015, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was another government party – besides the head of the PAP – that was quick to refute the claims, saying that they had no basis.
Posting a statement on the matter online then, MOF reiterated Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s earlier assertion that increased spending planned for the rest of the decade is sufficiently provided for by measures that the Government had already taken.
Today, the MOF released a new statement and said that PM Lee’s confirmation of a tax hike is “in line” with the DPM’s comments from 2015.
The Ministry said that there is enough revenue for this term of government but that since government spending has been increasing, making plans to finance such spending would “better ease in the needed measures, and to give our people and businesses some time to adjust.”
It added:
“This is in line with Prime Minister Lee’s speech at the PAP convention on Nov 19, 2017, where PM Lee said, ‘For this current term of Government, we have enough revenue’,” said MOF.
“Any decision to raise taxes will not be taken lightly. But necessary investments in the future are needed.
“The Government has to remain forward-looking, planning beyond this decade, and will study all options carefully, doing it with least impact on the less well-off and on Singapore’s economy.”
Netizens responding to MOF’s claims that there is no contradiction between the PM’s statement last weekend and the government’s stance in 2015 were incensed:
Netizens weren’t swayed by the PM’s reasons explaining the tax hike earlier this week and called on him to slash the high salaries ministers draw, instead of pushing the financial burden of increased spending to the people:
http://www.theindependent.sg/incense...ding-tax-hike/
http://www.theindependent.sg/tax-hik...-lee-confirms/
