Quantcast
Channel: Factually SG Archives — SGHardTruth
Viewing all 32 articles
Browse latest View live

How is HDB helping low-income households with a roof over their head? – Factually – Housing

$
0
0

The tenet of Singapore’s public housing rests on home ownership for the masses. Home ownership provides Singaporeans not just with a quality flat to live in, but also a tangible stake in the country.

For families who are unable to afford home ownership and have no family support,
HDB offers public rental flats.

  • The monthly household income ceiling to rent an HDB flat is $1,500.

HDB is increasing the public rental stock from the current 50,000 units to 60,000 units, to assist more of such households.

The rental rates HDB charges are highly subsidised,

  • starting from as low as $26 a month.

The rates are also tiered according to household income, so that more help is extended to those in greater need.

However, some tenants may be hesitant to earn a higher income which may lead to a larger rent increase.

HDB understands these concerns.

For rental flat tenants whose monthly household income increases from “not more than $800” to “$801 to $1,500”,

  • the HDB exercises flexibility and suspends the rental increase for one tenancy term of two years. This will ensure that they will not be made worse off after an income increase.
  • At the end of the two years, if the income increase is still insufficient relative to the rent increase, HDB will continue to waive the rent increase for another tenancy term of two years.

This arrangement will help the tenants whose income has just increased to sustain the higher income and build up their finances.

HDB is also committed to helping rental flat tenants become home owners.

  • If they are first-timers, they are eligible for the Special CPF Housing Grant and Additional CPF Housing Grant in their flat purchase.
  • They may obtain up to $60,000 in grants which can help to significantly lower the loan amount required and subsequent mortgage repayments for the flat purchased.

References :

Link : Housing – How is HDB helping low-income households with a roof over their head?

****************



Have our real incomes been stagnating? – Factually on Incomes and Purchasing Power

$
0
0

Published Date: 14 June, 2013

Real incomes are incomes that have been adjusted for price changes. 

The majority of Singaporean workers and households have seen growth in their real incomes in the five-year period from 2007 to 2012. Real income growth in 2007-2012 was also stronger than in the earlier five-year period of 2002-2007.

For the lower 20 percent of Singaporeans, income growth was weak or negative in 2002-2007, and only recovered in the last five years (2007-2012).

Individual wages

The median worker saw real wage growth of 9.3% in 2007-2012. However, in the previous five years from 2002 to 2007, real wages of the median worker declined by 0.2% [Chart 1].

Real wages of the worker at the 20th percentile grew more slowly at 4.4% in 2007-2012, offsetting a fall by 3.7% from 2002 to 2007.

Note that the figures for real income growth are after deducting ‘All-Items CPI’ inflation. This includes costs of imputed rentals on owner-occupied homes, which are not actual cash expenditures. Real income growth in the last five years was stronger when excluding this item – at 8.2% and 13.2% respectively for the 20th percentile and median income worker in 2007-2012 (see footnote to Chart 1). 

Chart 1: Change in the Real Gross Monthly Income from Work (including employer CPF contributions) of full-time employed Singapore Citizen, 2002-2007 & 2007-2012 (June)


Source: MOM
Note: Deflating by CPI excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation, the cumulative real growth for the 20th percentile and median income are -4.5% and -1.1% respectively in 2002-2007 and 8.2% and 13.2%respectively in 2007-2012.

Household income

Similarly, real median monthly household income from work on a per household member basis has increased by 13.9% in the last five years (2007-2012), after growing by 7.9% in the previous five years (2002-2007) [Chart 2].

Real income growth at the 20th percentile was also stronger in the second half of the decade (10.2%) than the first half (4.4%).

Real income growth in the last five years was stronger when excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied homes  – at 19.2%and 18.8% respectively for the 20th percentile and median income household in 2007-2012 (see footnote to Chart 2).

Chart 2: Cumulative Real Change in Monthly Household Income from Work Per Household Member Among Employed Singaporean Households, 2002-2007 & 2007-2012.


Source: DOS
* Deflating by CPI excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation, the cumulative real growth for the 20th percentile and median income households are 3.1% and 7.2% respectively in 2002-2007 and 19.2%and 18.8% respectively in 2007-2012.
Household income from work includes employer CPF contributions.

International comparisons of real income growth

Slowing or stagnating incomes are a challenge for most developed countries, and the more developed ones in Asia. Chart 3 compares real income growth in Singapore with that in similar Asian economies. The median Singaporean household has seen its real income grow more than twice as fast as that in Hong Kong, and more so compared to South Korea and Taiwan.

Chart 3: Real Growth of Median Total Household Incomes after Accounting for Taxes and Transfers, 2007-2011 (Cumulative)


Source: Data from National Statistical Offices and the IMF

Notes:

  • South Korea: based on average rather than median income. Also includes transfers but not taxes.
  • Hong Kong: based on median income after accounting for cash transfers.
  • Hong Kong data is for 2006-2011, unlike the other three countries (2007-2011).
  • Cumulative real growth for Singapore from 2007-2012 is 17.7%. Data for 2012 is not available for Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.

Reference:

Source Link :  Facutally – Have our real incomes been stagnating?


The truth about the Singapore Reserves – Factually. www.gov.sg

$
0
0

     www.gov.sg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More Info  :

Factually – > Reserves

*************************************

Excerpt : 

1. Which entities manage the nation’s reserves? 

Our reserves are managed by three agencies – the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Temasek Holdings (Temasek) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). The Government’s assets, other than its deposits with MAS and its stake in Temasek, are mainly managed by the GIC. The MAS which is a statutory board, manages its own assets. Temasek, which is wholly owned by the Government, also manages its own assets. 

1) The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) – As at 31 Mar 2012, the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) managed by MAS stands at S$305 billion.  MAS’s management of the OFR is in line with Singapore’s monetary policy, which is centred on the management of the exchange rate. The primary objective of our monetary policy is to promote medium term price stability for sustainable economic growth.  MAS, as the central bank, also holds around S$150 billion in government deposits as at 31 Mar 2012.  
2) Temasek Holdings – Temasek was incorporated in 1974 as an independently managed commercial investment company. As at 31 Mar 2012, Temasek’s assets under management (AUM) are S$198 billion.  
3) Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) – GIC is the Singapore Government’s fund manager and manages over US$100 billion. So far, the Government has not revealed the full size of the assets managed by GIC (this is discussed in item 3).  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. Why do we not reveal GIC’s assets?  

Unlike MAS and Temasek which publish the value of their assets, the Government does not publish the size of its assets managed by GIC. Revealing GIC’s assets too will amount to publishing the full size of Singapore’s financial reserves.
It is not in our national interest to publish the full size of our reserves. If we do so, it will make it easier for markets to mount speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar during periods of vulnerability. Moreover, our reserves are a strategic asset, and a key defence in times of crisis, and it will be unwise to reveal the full and exact resources at our disposal. 

However this does not mean that GIC is unaccountable, or that there are no checks in place. (See item 4.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6. Some online postings attempt to estimate the size of GIC by using data on budget surpluses and issuance of Government securities to estimate fund flows into GIC over the years. When their estimate of GIC’s size exceeds other market estimates, they conclude that funds have therefore gone missing. Where do they go wrong? 

Our reserves cannot ‘go missing’ (see item 4). 

 Some of the confusion created by these recent “estimates” of GIC’s assets arises from the following errors: 

First, they assume that all the Government’s available funds are flowed to GIC alone. The Government has significant deposits placed in MAS. As of 31 March 2012, the Government has $147 billion deposited with MAS, compared to MAS’ Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) valued at S$305 billion. MAS has a significant proportion of its portfolio invested in liquid financial market instruments and hence earns a lower rate of return than GIC.  

Second, debt servicing costs are sometimes ignored in these estimates. This results in an over-estimate of the assets accumulated through investing the proceeds from the issuance of Government securities, especially over long periods of time. For more information on the Government’s debt position, please refer to the MOF website [http://app.mof.gov.sg/sg_borrowings.aspx].   

Third, they overestimate the funds flow into GIC by including the interest and dividend income that the Government gets on its investments. These estimates incorrectly assume the full amount of government budget surpluses as fresh fund injections, without first removing the interest and dividend income portion.

***********************************************


How can I use my CPF money? What are the myths and facts surrounding our CPF savings?

$
0
0

Published Date: 15 April, 2014

Edited on 6 May 2014-CPF monies are your money and this is a fact.  You can use CPF monies for housing, healthcare and investments. There are guidelines for their usage.

Blogs such as The Heart Truths have made allegations about our CPF monies that are inaccurate or outright false. These are some of the myths they have perpetrated and the facts:

Myth 1: Singaporeans have the least adequate pension funds.

Screen shot from ‘The Heart Truths’

This is not true.

Your CPF money is your nest egg upon retirement. The uniqueness of our system is that you can also use your CPF monies to pay for housing. Many Singaporeans have indeed done so and some have fully paid for their homes by the time they retire. The homes that we own are part of our retirement assets too, allowing us to save on rent while providing us with the option to sell our homes when we need to.

When international studies on pension systems make comparisons across countries, they often ignore this fact. They paint an incomplete picture of what members have in their accounts. They do not take into account the fact that Singaporeans also have used their CPF monies to pay for their homes. 

For a more complete picture about our retirement funds adequacy, read our Factually article on this here. In fact, more recent studies published by OECD and Mercer in 2013 reflect higher income replacement rates and adequacy levels, even without considering property ownership.

Myth 2: When I use my CPF money to pay for my HDB flat, I have to pay CPF Board (CPFB) back the accrued interest if I ever sell my HDB flat. Essentially, I am paying “extra interest” for nothing.

 Many Singaporeans know that we can use our own CPF monies ( which is our savings) to pay for a HDB flat as this can serve as another form of asset for retirement needs.

However, when we use CPF monies to buy a home, we are borrowing money from our own nest egg, which is meant for other retirement needs as well.

Hence, it is only right that if we were to sell our home, we should return what we have borrowed (i.e. the principal amount) plus the interest we would have earned had the money not been taken out from our CPF account (accrued interest). This amount is returned to our own CPF accounts for our future retirement needs.

Accrued interest needs to be refunded to our CPF accounts upon the sale of our home as long as the sales proceeds is sufficient to pay back the principal and interest.

Myth 3: Singaporeans get very low interest rates for our CPF savings. Moreover, we are paying an “implicit tax” as the returns on CPF monies invested by Temasek Holdings and GIC are not given back to Singaporeans. 

Our CPF funds are invested in risk-free Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGSs). The returns on SSGSs are pegged to the returns of other bonds in the market with similar risks. There is no connection between GIC’s rate of return and the interest paid on our CPF accounts. GIC invests our foreign reserves in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets that carry higher risks that SSGSs. The value of SSGS is assured, as they are guranteed by one of the few remaining triple-A credit-rated governments in the world. With our CPF funds being invested in SSGSs, we can be absolutely certain our funds will be there when we need them.

CPF interest rates are guaranteed and risk-free. The interest is paid whether or not the Government’s investments backing its liabilities to CPF, including investments managed by GIC, do well or not. So if GIC’s investments actually lose money, as they did during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09, CPF members will still get the 2.5% interest on our funds in the Ordinary Account.

Finally, apart from the CPF system, it should be remembered that we Singaporeans benefit from GIC’s and Temasek’s returns though these are not linked to the returns we get on our CPF funds. GIC’s and Temasek’s returns supplement the annual Budget through their  Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC), which amounted to $8.1 billion this fiscal year. This money allows our Government to make further investments for our future, such as in education, R&D, healthcare and improving our physical environment.

Aside from the return on our Ordinary Account, Singaporeans enjoy higher interest rates on their other CPF accounts-

 4% on our Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts, and an additional 1% on their first $60,000 in all our accounts:

 

 Source: CPFB’s website

 

Myth 4: The Minimum Sum prevents us from using our CPF money.

This is not true. The Minimum Sum(MS) is adjusted for inflation on an annual basis for each cohort. This is necessary because the retirement income needed in real terms for someone who turns 55 in 2014 will not be the same as what would be needed for someone who turns 55 in 2024.  $100 today would be worth less than $100 in 10 years’ time.

Considering that a price of your favourite kopi or kaya toast would keep increasing due to inflation, it helps to set aside a sustainable nest egg.

The Minimum Sum exists to ensure that our nest egg is spread out comfortably to last us not just for one or two years after retirement, but throughout our golden years.

The adjustment for inflation will not affect the Minimum Sum of people who have already turned 55. Here is a table of the changes:

55th birthday on or after Minimum Sum (in 2003 dollars) Minimum Sum (after adjustment for inflation)

1 July 2003

$80,000

$80,000

1 July 2004

$84,000

$84,500

1 July 2005

$88,000

$90,000

1 July 2006

$92,000

$94,600

1 July 2007

$96,000

$99,600

1 July 2008

$100,000

$106,000

1 July 2009

$104,000

$117,000

1 July 2010

$108,000

$123,000

1 July 2011

$112,000

$131,000

1 July 2012

$113,000

$139,000

1 July 2013

$115,000

$148,000

1 July 2014

 To be announced

To be announced

1 July 2015

$120,000

To be announced

 Source: CPFB’s website on Minimum Sum

In fact, according to MOM, the percentage of active CPF members who are able to meet their Cohort Minimum Sum has been improving over the years. For the cohort who turned 55 in 2011, 45% of active members attained their applicable Minimum Sum (in cash or cash plus property). In 2012, this statistic increased to 48.7%.

Sources

Source : Facutally : How can I use my CPF money? What are the myths and facts surrounding our CPF savings?

__________________________________________________

Did Han Hui Hui or Dr Leong Sze Hian Started the Lie

$
0
0

HONG LIM PARK HACKLING OF SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN CONTINUES…

Singapore Police Force denied online reports that officers turned up at Han Hui Hui’s house at midnight the night before, or that she was not allowed to eat during her interview. – See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/police-question-organiser-hong-lim-park-protest-disrupte#sthash.40umrFgv.dpuf

Capturedfadsagtet

On the day when Han Hui Hui was assisting in the investigation, it is interesting to know instead of informing her close partner Roy Ngerng of her status, Han Hui Hui informed Dr Leong Sze Hian. Dr Leong did a live cast in his Facebook page on Han Hui Hui’s status.

Many Netizen asked, did Han Hui Hui started the lie or was it Dr Leong who created the spin.

Capturegadga

In the meantime, Netizen’s comments in Straits Time’s Facebook on this new spin was fast and furious.

Police have confirmed that local blogger Han Hui... - The Straits Times

If you are wondering how does the petition to revoke Han Hui Hui’s citizenship goes…On press time it was

Capturegasdg

Here is the link  Revoke Han Hui Hui’s Singapore Citizenship!

http://www.change.org/p/singapore-government-revoke-han-hui-hui-s-ngapore-citizenship


Tan Chuan Jin Speaks Out On Viral Video

$
0
0

10339725_813632048679572_8138191342773925688_n

This was first raised to me by an online site who posted the video interview by Marcus Tan or Mohd Bin Japar, and thereafter, a number of you sent various links to me asking me to do something about the injustices done to him. I was quite puzzled by the approach he took especially as the complaint had been sent to us to investigate. MOM followed up on the matter. Since then, the individual appears to have regretted taking the actions he did and has withdrawn his claims. But look at the hate that has been generated.

In our work helping to find employment for individuals, we have come across those who have been made more bitter by others who egg them on by blaming others for their predicament. The negativity comes across in their interviews and it also gets in the way of them trying to improve oneselves…because after all, it was not their fault but someone else, so what is there to change and improve?

Some have taken to make public their rants only to regret subsequently. Unfortunately, these actions backfire as potential employers will be reluctant to take on these individuals. Some have shared with me that they will never hire someone like that because it reflects a certain attitude and values. The sad reality is that when searches are done on the background of the persons, it can surface up. These can be permanent online testimonials.

If there are violations, let us know and we will investigate. We have taken action and rectified the situation for many. However, there are also cases where there is no basis for the appeal. Some who do not want to accept the outcome have gone online.

Do be judicious. We do have the freedom to state what we want to and you are welcomed to do so. But do note that there can be consequences that can haunt us for a long time.

Tan Chuan Jin

Overhead from  netizen

  • Gilbert Goh intention was never to help. Like Roy, Han Hui Hui and Alex Tan, their goal is to exploit that little social spark trying to turn them into a inferno. Their ultimate goal is to bring down the government in the hope to gain power. Never mind that Singapore might collapse, never mind that people will be jobless, never mind that the country will be chaotic. All these people want is political power.
  • I’ve always believed that when we pull up our socks and do a good job, no boss would want to replace us. And for whatever reasons we need to find another job, there will be companies that will hire us. Most of us grew up in a tight labor market, and that is already to our advantage.If we do well, no one can steal our lunch. Don’t let whiners affect us.
  • Clearly, Mr Gilbert Goh, for all the perceived good intentions he wishes to portray to the general public, is an opportunist. He would rush to interview the so-called victims and make a post viral. But such posts are not balanced and these “victims” became real victims of Gilbert Goh’s “good” intention.
  • Isn’t a waste of MOM resource to investigate an allegation that turns out to be unfounded? The resource could been put into genuine cases.
  • seems like this is not the 1st time gilbert Goh tried to discredit businesses and backfired on him. What a liar!

Did your boss bully you? Know your rights! 雇员权益!

$
0
0

I was on my way home after meeting a friend in Toa Payoh Hub when I chanced upon this interesting talkshow.  It was a chinese talk show organised by Lian He Wan Bao.  I was first attracted by the long queue for the goodies bag. On a closer look at the stage, the backdrop captured my attention. It says “雇员权益“.  Which means “Employee’s Rights”

Another “thing” that captured my attention was Mr Lim Hock Chee, CEO of Sheng Siong Group.

So, they invited a boss to talk about “Employee’s Rights”. Kind of ironical isn’t it? or so I thought.

Know your employment rights.

Know your employment rights.

The banners stated some basic rights. The details of employment rights are covered in employment act and your employment contract. If you have any questions you can talk to NTUC who can also advice you on the fairness of your employment contract.

It will be nice to have a Chinese banner since this is a Chinese talkshow.

IMG-20141130-WA0002
Long queue for goodies bag.

IMG-20141130-WA0010

The Panel (From left to right) – Event emcee, Senior correspondent from Lian He Wan Bao, Mr Lim Hock Chee (CEO Sheng Siong), Mr Steven Goh (NTUC), Mr Song (Employee representative).

Strangely, both MOM and CPF board’s logo was on the backdrop. But, there wasn’t anyone from these agencies on stage. NTUC did not have their logo on stage. But they had a representative on stage.

Some interesting observation from 2 key members of the panel.

Steven Goh (NTUC)- Very well verse in employment act and the intricate relationship between employer and employee and other related matters.

Mr Lim Hock Chee – Pushing Sheng Siong brand a little too hard. But well balance in sharing on bosses mentallity.

When answering questions from the floor, Steven Goh brought up some interesting points that you might not know:

  • If your monthly salary is more than $50 per month, your company needs to contribute CPF for you.
  • If employee are called to work on his rest day, company must pay overtime rate. It cannot be off set with another off day.

IMG-20141130-WA0014

A well received event. Passerby and shop keeper dropped by to listen. A good mix of PMEs was seen as well. Participation from audience was good.

IMG-20141130-WA0017

 

Audience stayed back to ask NTUC rep Mr Steven Goh (In Green) more questions.

Know your rights!
MOM Hotline – 1800 221 9922
NTUC Mainline – 6213 8008
NTUC website – http://www.ntuc.org.sg

 

 

 


DR LIU THAI KER’S VIEW ON POPULATION GROWTH

$
0
0

Article and image Source – The Peak Magazine

Capturedsfjgkhtu

Forget seven million. Think ten million people, if you want this city-state to succeed. That’s the bold suggestion of Dr Liu Thai Ker, often credited as the architect of modern Singapore.

Denyse Yeo 07 Oct 2014 Dr Liu Thai Ker, October 2014, population, singapore

For many Singaporeans, the idea of a 6.9-million strong population by 2030 as outlined in the Population White Paper is still hard to swallow. So when Singapore’s former chief planner, Dr Liu Thai Ker, recently said the country should aim for 10 million instead, there were howls of protest and disbelief online and off.

But the former head of both the Housing Board and Urban Redevelopment Authority is adamant that his controversial estimation, made at a recent seminar, is correct.

In an hour-long interview at his Scotts Road office, he says: “As urban planners, we should look at the need. We must plan long-term so that we will not run out of land. Because if you run out of land, nobody is going to help you. After we focus on the need, then we should find a solution.

“But the voices that I hear from social circles, newspapers, is to look at limitations first. ‘We don’t have land, so how can we look at population?’ If that’s the case, would people say since we don’t have money, we don’t eat tonight? But eating is the priority.

“City planning is the same. The need is to plan for 10 million and then break the limitation, rather than say, ‘oh, we have a limitation and then we don’t plan for 10 million.’ That’s getting the priority wrong.”

Currently senior director of RSP Architects & Engineers as well as the founding chairman of the Centre for Liveable Cities, Dr Liu, 76, has some ideas although he declines to be drawn into a discussion of what the city will look like when it hits the magic 10-million mark – it would be too “irresponsible”, he says.

His broad vision includes keeping all the green spaces, landed properties, heritage areas and existing medium and high density areas, then scatter people across the island.

How? By going further on to the suggestions made in the White Paper and the Singapore Concept Plan of the country being divided up into five regions – central, north, south, east and west – with their own regional centres.

With 10 million residents, Singapore will become a megacity, made up of five smaller cities. He envisions that each city will have a population of two million, “just a little less than Kuala Lumpur… with its own Central Business District, hotels and cultural centres”.

He points to the fact that in 1960, Singapore’s population size was 1.89 million, “equivalent to each of these regions”. “When you plan like this, your whole concept of MRT lines must be different from now… You also have to build universities in the eastern region, for example, and redistribute facilities.

“But we must try. By not looking long-term, we may at best be doing remedial work. It’s like giving aspirin to a patient. When you talk about 10 million, you are doing surgery.”

Dr Liu, who is the first to admit that he is “talking as an outsider” since he’s no longer in government, clearly has lofty ideals. It’s in him when he says: “Everything I’ve said is to aim for creating a city that functions perfectly.

“We have to aim for perfection so that we can live with human failures. But if we aim for imperfection, it will be worse. Singapore functions almost perfectly. It’s one of the most efficient cities in the world, because we planned long term…

“The story of Singapore’s urbanisation from 1960 to today is a story of how when we face a problem, we face a problem bravely and squarely and created our own solutions, such as home ownership for all…

“In terms of urban planning, clarity equals courage. The story of our achievement in urban planning today comes from the fact that the political leaders and the planners and engineers thought through the problem very carefully, not in piecemeal but in totality until we achieved clarity.

“When we achieved clarity, we had the courage to implement (policies) even when we acted against world trends.” Singapore, despite being poor in the 1960s, introduced pollution control, a radical decision at the time.

Asked to name the challenges that Singapore has if it faces a 10-million population and Dr Liu shoots back. Think big picture, he appeals, saying: “Don’t try to immediately picture the worst scenario. Can you use your imagination to picture a nicer scenario?

“Our natural instinct to look at the worst possibility. But when you are always looking at the worst possibilities, you get nowhere. You convince yourself to do nothing, to bury your head in the sand. But that’s not a responsible way of doing things.”

Ultimately, for Singapore to remain sovereign, it must plan for the long haul. The 10-million figure is just a start. “If we plan for anything less than that, I just feel that we will be sorry.

“If we run out of land and population needs continue to increase, what do we do? Then we have to take away the parks, the landed properties and heritage buildings, and we also find that the MRT lines don’t really work. Is that something we want?

“We need to focus on the need rather than the limitation, and our achievement as a city in the last 50 years shows that we are capable of finding solutions.”

http://sg.thepeakmagazine.com/2014/10/feature-liu-thai-ker-2/



What Victor Lye has to say about WP Sylvia Lim and APEHTC (Worker Party)

$
0
0

TRADE FAIRS, GREED & AHPETC’S REAL MOTIVE

AHPETC trade fairs are about greed, not about benefiting shopkeepers & residents in Hougang

In the 25 Dec 2014 ST article “WP-run Town Council fined $800 over unlicensed fair”, Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim said, “we are unable to organise activities to benefit residents and businesses in the area.”

Do not be fooled by this desperate playing of the “victim card”.  The record shows that AHPETC trade fairs have hurt shopkeepers due to high frequency and long duration.

Instead, Ms Lim revealed AHPETC’s true motive when she said, “The town council has also lost a source of revenue to manage its operations.”

It is very clear. AHPETC’s trade fairs are about money. It has little to do with benefiting residents and businesses in the area.

Here is the background.

After AHPETC was formed, it took over common property at Hougang Central and at Kovan where Hougang Mall and Heartland Mall are located respectively. Hougang and Kovan MRT stations there ensure good crowds. It became apparent to AHPETC that it could generate revenue by renting out common property for commercial activities.

The more frequent and the longer the duration, the more money AHPETC gets. AHPETC pockets money from the highest bidder with little risk. The trade fair organiser takes the risk because he has to sublet and rent out the stalls to cover what he paid AHPETC. The stalls often sold items similar to those of the surrounding HDB shopkeepers.

At first, Hougang HDB shopkeepers were friendly and tolerated. As the trade fairs became more frequent and longer,their businesses were affected. They became unhappy. When the shopkeepers complained, AHPETC staff called the police. The issue was reported by the press. AHPETC’s gravy train was derailed.

AHPETC does not want to be restricted from making money by renting out common property for commercial activities.

The NEA trade fair application form states that “consensus of shopkeepers” and/or “letter of support from the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC)” are required, depending on where the fair is held.

The rules are meant to protect local shopkeepers against unfair competition and to balance community interests. Even trade fairs organised by grassroots organisations need approval from the authorities. There are self-imposed limits on frequency and duration with guidelines to minimise adverse effects and to benefit the community.

AHPETC questions the need for a letter of support from the CCC. This was not a show stopper for AHPETC’s earlier trade fairs. The CCC does not approve trade fairs. The National Environmental Agency (NEA) does. The CCC’s role is to assess if community interests are safeguarded. Nonetheless, the shopkeepers’ consensus appears paramount in the case of trade fair permit applications to the NEA.

In fact, AHPETC organised many trade fairs after it took office. It was not hampered at all. Truth is greed likely got the better of AHPETC. Its trade fairs became more frequent and longer in duration until the gravy train was derailed by angry shopkeepers.

How can AHPETC believe it is special and exempt from such checks and approvals?

AHPETC has cynically disregarded our laws and disrespected civil servants doing their duty. In chasing easy money, AHPETC trade fairs have hurt shopkeepers in Hougang. Based on AHPETC’s poor financial management, it appears that every two Aljunied households are paying for one other. Is there a shortfall of funds available to maintain the estate? Can Aljunied residents say the standard of cleanliness is as good as before?

In playing the “victim card”, Ms Lim has deviously failed to reveal that the CCC had given its support to the AHPETC trade fair in question. Yet AHPETC chose not to submit the application so that it could contest its case in court. Why?

AHPETC wants to challenge the checks and approvals required by law so that it can raise money freely using common property under its management.

 

The key questions to ask are:

 

  • Are town councils allowed to earn money by renting out common property for commercial activities?
  • Is AHPETC facing cash flow problems that it must raise funds, but for whom really, and for what purpose?

Thanks to Ms Lim’s revelation of AHPETC’s true motive, it is now of utmost public interest for AHPETC to disclose how much money it has generated from trade fairs held on common property, the number of trade fairs and the duration of each since it has been in charge.


新加坡年轻人平均月薪亚洲最高!

$
0
0

关于新加坡人月薪 日本经济新闻首次进行了一项“亚洲10国年轻人调查”,汇总了各国年轻人的收入和经济等情况。新加坡年轻人平均月薪4100新元,亚洲最高! 据日经中文网28日报道,调查以中国、日本、韩国、新加坡、泰国、印度、印度尼西亚、越南、菲律宾、马来西亚这10个国家的20多岁男女大学毕业生为对象,总计调查了2000人。 在平均月收入方面,新加坡最高,约达36万日元(约4100新元),其次为韩国和日本,中国为16万日元(约1800新元),排在被调查的亚洲10国的第四位。最低的则是越南,仅为4万日元(约460新元)。 尽管印尼年轻人平均月收入仅为7万日元(约800新元),但感觉“过去一年经济上宽裕”的比例在亚洲10国中非常突出,接近80%。越南的比例也高达74%。反而是收入水平相对较高的日本和韩国,感觉经济宽裕的年轻人比例分别只有25%和28%。 另一方面,中国和印度两国约80%的年轻人也感觉在经济上比较宽裕。 关于3年后的生活,印度、菲律宾80%以上年轻人回答“生活水平将超过同龄人”。此外,中国83%的年轻人回答拥有信用卡,马来西亚62%的年轻人回答有从金融机构贷款。 #新加坡人月薪

The post 新加坡年轻人平均月薪亚洲最高! appeared first on sghardtruth.

Are Singaporean PMETs losing out?

$
0
0

Published Date: 28 April, 2015   Myth #1: Singaporean PMETs are losing out to foreign PMETs in the job market   It’s a common concern that Singaporean Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) are facing stiff competition from foreigners in the job market and losing out on a wide scale. If this is true, the

The post Are Singaporean PMETs losing out? appeared first on SGHardTruth.

Did Han Hui Hui or Dr Leong Sze Hian Started the Lie

$
0
0

HONG LIM PARK HACKLING OF SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN CONTINUES… Singapore Police Force denied online reports that officers turned up at Han Hui Hui’s house at midnight the night before, or that she was not allowed to eat during her interview. – See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/police-question-organiser-hong-lim-park-protest-disrupte#sthash.40umrFgv.dpuf On the day when Han Hui Hui was assisting in the

The post Did Han Hui Hui or Dr Leong Sze Hian Started the Lie appeared first on SGHardTruth.

How is HDB helping low-income households with a roof over their head? – Factually – Housing

$
0
0

The tenet of Singapore’s public housing rests on home ownership for the masses. Home ownership provides Singaporeans not just with a quality flat to live in, but also a tangible stake in the country.

For families who are unable to afford home ownership and have no family support,
HDB offers public rental flats.

  • The monthly household income ceiling to rent an HDB flat is $1,500.

HDB is increasing the public rental stock from the current 50,000 units to 60,000 units, to assist more of such households.

The rental rates HDB charges are highly subsidised,

  • starting from as low as $26 a month.

The rates are also tiered according to household income, so that more help is extended to those in greater need.

However, some tenants may be hesitant to earn a higher income which may lead to a larger rent increase.

HDB understands these concerns.

For rental flat tenants whose monthly household income increases from “not more than $800” to “$801 to $1,500”,

  • the HDB exercises flexibility and suspends the rental increase for one tenancy term of two years. This will ensure that they will not be made worse off after an income increase.
  • At the end of the two years, if the income increase is still insufficient relative to the rent increase, HDB will continue to waive the rent increase for another tenancy term of two years.

This arrangement will help the tenants whose income has just increased to sustain the higher income and build up their finances.

HDB is also committed to helping rental flat tenants become home owners.

  • If they are first-timers, they are eligible for the Special CPF Housing Grant and Additional CPF Housing Grant in their flat purchase.
  • They may obtain up to $60,000 in grants which can help to significantly lower the loan amount required and subsequent mortgage repayments for the flat purchased.

References :

Link : Housing – How is HDB helping low-income households with a roof over their head?

****************проверить релевантность страницырадиаторы отопления купить в москвеэксклюзивный тур сафари

The post How is HDB helping low-income households with a roof over their head? – Factually – Housing appeared first on SGHardTruth.

Have our real incomes been stagnating? – Factually on Incomes and Purchasing Power

$
0
0

Published Date: 14 June, 2013

Real incomes are incomes that have been adjusted for price changes. 

The majority of Singaporean workers and households have seen growth in their real incomes in the five-year period from 2007 to 2012. Real income growth in 2007-2012 was also stronger than in the earlier five-year period of 2002-2007.

For the lower 20 percent of Singaporeans, income growth was weak or negative in 2002-2007, and only recovered in the last five years (2007-2012).

Individual wages

The median worker saw real wage growth of 9.3% in 2007-2012. However, in the previous five years from 2002 to 2007, real wages of the median worker declined by 0.2% [Chart 1].

Real wages of the worker at the 20th percentile grew more slowly at 4.4% in 2007-2012, offsetting a fall by 3.7% from 2002 to 2007.

Note that the figures for real income growth are after deducting ‘All-Items CPI’ inflation. This includes costs of imputed rentals on owner-occupied homes, which are not actual cash expenditures. Real income growth in the last five years was stronger when excluding this item – at 8.2% and 13.2% respectively for the 20th percentile and median income worker in 2007-2012 (see footnote to Chart 1). 

Chart 1: Change in the Real Gross Monthly Income from Work (including employer CPF contributions) of full-time employed Singapore Citizen, 2002-2007 & 2007-2012 (June)


Source: MOM
Note: Deflating by CPI excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation, the cumulative real growth for the 20th percentile and median income are -4.5% and -1.1% respectively in 2002-2007 and 8.2% and 13.2%respectively in 2007-2012.

Household income

Similarly, real median monthly household income from work on a per household member basis has increased by 13.9% in the last five years (2007-2012), after growing by 7.9% in the previous five years (2002-2007) [Chart 2].

Real income growth at the 20th percentile was also stronger in the second half of the decade (10.2%) than the first half (4.4%).

Real income growth in the last five years was stronger when excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied homes  – at 19.2%and 18.8% respectively for the 20th percentile and median income household in 2007-2012 (see footnote to Chart 2).

Chart 2: Cumulative Real Change in Monthly Household Income from Work Per Household Member Among Employed Singaporean Households, 2002-2007 & 2007-2012.


Source: DOS
* Deflating by CPI excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation, the cumulative real growth for the 20th percentile and median income households are 3.1% and 7.2% respectively in 2002-2007 and 19.2%and 18.8% respectively in 2007-2012.
Household income from work includes employer CPF contributions.

International comparisons of real income growth

Slowing or stagnating incomes are a challenge for most developed countries, and the more developed ones in Asia. Chart 3 compares real income growth in Singapore with that in similar Asian economies. The median Singaporean household has seen its real income grow more than twice as fast as that in Hong Kong, and more so compared to South Korea and Taiwan.

Chart 3: Real Growth of Median Total Household Incomes after Accounting for Taxes and Transfers, 2007-2011 (Cumulative)


Source: Data from National Statistical Offices and the IMF

Notes:

  • South Korea: based on average rather than median income. Also includes transfers but not taxes.
  • Hong Kong: based on median income after accounting for cash transfers.
  • Hong Kong data is for 2006-2011, unlike the other three countries (2007-2011).
  • Cumulative real growth for Singapore from 2007-2012 is 17.7%. Data for 2012 is not available for Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.

Reference:

Source Link :  Facutally – Have our real incomes been stagnating?

заказать оптимизация сайтов интернет рекламазанятия йогой для начинающихкилиманджаро цены

The post Have our real incomes been stagnating? – Factually on Incomes and Purchasing Power appeared first on SGHardTruth.

The truth about the Singapore Reserves – Factually. www.gov.sg

$
0
0

[youtube=http://youtu.be/e9acnYy8mRc]

     www.gov.sg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More Info  :

Factually – > Reserves

*************************************

Excerpt : 

1. Which entities manage the nation’s reserves? 

Our reserves are managed by three agencies – the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Temasek Holdings (Temasek) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). The Government’s assets, other than its deposits with MAS and its stake in Temasek, are mainly managed by the GIC. The MAS which is a statutory board, manages its own assets. Temasek, which is wholly owned by the Government, also manages its own assets. 

1) The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) – As at 31 Mar 2012, the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) managed by MAS stands at S$305 billion.  MAS’s management of the OFR is in line with Singapore’s monetary policy, which is centred on the management of the exchange rate. The primary objective of our monetary policy is to promote medium term price stability for sustainable economic growth.  MAS, as the central bank, also holds around S$150 billion in government deposits as at 31 Mar 2012.  
2) Temasek Holdings – Temasek was incorporated in 1974 as an independently managed commercial investment company. As at 31 Mar 2012, Temasek’s assets under management (AUM) are S$198 billion.  
3) Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) – GIC is the Singapore Government’s fund manager and manages over US$100 billion. So far, the Government has not revealed the full size of the assets managed by GIC (this is discussed in item 3).  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. Why do we not reveal GIC’s assets?  

Unlike MAS and Temasek which publish the value of their assets, the Government does not publish the size of its assets managed by GIC. Revealing GIC’s assets too will amount to publishing the full size of Singapore’s financial reserves.
It is not in our national interest to publish the full size of our reserves. If we do so, it will make it easier for markets to mount speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar during periods of vulnerability. Moreover, our reserves are a strategic asset, and a key defence in times of crisis, and it will be unwise to reveal the full and exact resources at our disposal. 

However this does not mean that GIC is unaccountable, or that there are no checks in place. (See item 4.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6. Some online postings attempt to estimate the size of GIC by using data on budget surpluses and issuance of Government securities to estimate fund flows into GIC over the years. When their estimate of GIC’s size exceeds other market estimates, they conclude that funds have therefore gone missing. Where do they go wrong? 

Our reserves cannot ‘go missing’ (see item 4). 

 Some of the confusion created by these recent “estimates” of GIC’s assets arises from the following errors: 

First, they assume that all the Government’s available funds are flowed to GIC alone. The Government has significant deposits placed in MAS. As of 31 March 2012, the Government has $147 billion deposited with MAS, compared to MAS’ Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) valued at S$305 billion. MAS has a significant proportion of its portfolio invested in liquid financial market instruments and hence earns a lower rate of return than GIC.  

Second, debt servicing costs are sometimes ignored in these estimates. This results in an over-estimate of the assets accumulated through investing the proceeds from the issuance of Government securities, especially over long periods of time. For more information on the Government’s debt position, please refer to the MOF website [http://app.mof.gov.sg/sg_borrowings.aspx].   

Third, they overestimate the funds flow into GIC by including the interest and dividend income that the Government gets on its investments. These estimates incorrectly assume the full amount of government budget surpluses as fresh fund injections, without first removing the interest and dividend income portion.

***********************************************продвижение сайтов в googleвертикальный радиатор купитьтуры париж май

The post The truth about the Singapore Reserves – Factually. www.gov.sg appeared first on SGHardTruth.


How can I use my CPF money? What are the myths and facts surrounding our CPF savings?

$
0
0

Published Date: 15 April, 2014

Edited on 6 May 2014-CPF monies are your money and this is a fact.  You can use CPF monies for housing, healthcare and investments. There are guidelines for their usage.

Blogs such as The Heart Truths have made allegations about our CPF monies that are inaccurate or outright false. These are some of the myths they have perpetrated and the facts:

Myth 1: Singaporeans have the least adequate pension funds.

Screen shot from ‘The Heart Truths’

This is not true.

Your CPF money is your nest egg upon retirement. The uniqueness of our system is that you can also use your CPF monies to pay for housing. Many Singaporeans have indeed done so and some have fully paid for their homes by the time they retire. The homes that we own are part of our retirement assets too, allowing us to save on rent while providing us with the option to sell our homes when we need to.

When international studies on pension systems make comparisons across countries, they often ignore this fact. They paint an incomplete picture of what members have in their accounts. They do not take into account the fact that Singaporeans also have used their CPF monies to pay for their homes. 

For a more complete picture about our retirement funds adequacy, read our Factually article on this here. In fact, more recent studies published by OECD and Mercer in 2013 reflect higher income replacement rates and adequacy levels, even without considering property ownership.

Myth 2: When I use my CPF money to pay for my HDB flat, I have to pay CPF Board (CPFB) back the accrued interest if I ever sell my HDB flat. Essentially, I am paying “extra interest” for nothing.

 Many Singaporeans know that we can use our own CPF monies ( which is our savings) to pay for a HDB flat as this can serve as another form of asset for retirement needs.

However, when we use CPF monies to buy a home, we are borrowing money from our own nest egg, which is meant for other retirement needs as well.

Hence, it is only right that if we were to sell our home, we should return what we have borrowed (i.e. the principal amount) plus the interest we would have earned had the money not been taken out from our CPF account (accrued interest). This amount is returned to our own CPF accounts for our future retirement needs.

Accrued interest needs to be refunded to our CPF accounts upon the sale of our home as long as the sales proceeds is sufficient to pay back the principal and interest.

Myth 3: Singaporeans get very low interest rates for our CPF savings. Moreover, we are paying an “implicit tax” as the returns on CPF monies invested by Temasek Holdings and GIC are not given back to Singaporeans. 

Our CPF funds are invested in risk-free Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGSs). The returns on SSGSs are pegged to the returns of other bonds in the market with similar risks. There is no connection between GIC’s rate of return and the interest paid on our CPF accounts. GIC invests our foreign reserves in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets that carry higher risks that SSGSs. The value of SSGS is assured, as they are guranteed by one of the few remaining triple-A credit-rated governments in the world. With our CPF funds being invested in SSGSs, we can be absolutely certain our funds will be there when we need them.

CPF interest rates are guaranteed and risk-free. The interest is paid whether or not the Government’s investments backing its liabilities to CPF, including investments managed by GIC, do well or not. So if GIC’s investments actually lose money, as they did during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09, CPF members will still get the 2.5% interest on our funds in the Ordinary Account.

Finally, apart from the CPF system, it should be remembered that we Singaporeans benefit from GIC’s and Temasek’s returns though these are not linked to the returns we get on our CPF funds. GIC’s and Temasek’s returns supplement the annual Budget through their  Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC), which amounted to $8.1 billion this fiscal year. This money allows our Government to make further investments for our future, such as in education, R&D, healthcare and improving our physical environment.

Aside from the return on our Ordinary Account, Singaporeans enjoy higher interest rates on their other CPF accounts-

 4% on our Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts, and an additional 1% on their first $60,000 in all our accounts:

 

 Source: CPFB’s website

 

Myth 4: The Minimum Sum prevents us from using our CPF money.

This is not true. The Minimum Sum(MS) is adjusted for inflation on an annual basis for each cohort. This is necessary because the retirement income needed in real terms for someone who turns 55 in 2014 will not be the same as what would be needed for someone who turns 55 in 2024.  $100 today would be worth less than $100 in 10 years’ time.

Considering that a price of your favourite kopi or kaya toast would keep increasing due to inflation, it helps to set aside a sustainable nest egg.

The Minimum Sum exists to ensure that our nest egg is spread out comfortably to last us not just for one or two years after retirement, but throughout our golden years.

The adjustment for inflation will not affect the Minimum Sum of people who have already turned 55. Here is a table of the changes:

55th birthday on or after Minimum Sum (in 2003 dollars) Minimum Sum (after adjustment for inflation)

1 July 2003

$80,000

$80,000

1 July 2004

$84,000

$84,500

1 July 2005

$88,000

$90,000

1 July 2006

$92,000

$94,600

1 July 2007

$96,000

$99,600

1 July 2008

$100,000

$106,000

1 July 2009

$104,000

$117,000

1 July 2010

$108,000

$123,000

1 July 2011

$112,000

$131,000

1 July 2012

$113,000

$139,000

1 July 2013

$115,000

$148,000

1 July 2014

 To be announced

To be announced

1 July 2015

$120,000

To be announced

 Source: CPFB’s website on Minimum Sum

In fact, according to MOM, the percentage of active CPF members who are able to meet their Cohort Minimum Sum has been improving over the years. For the cohort who turned 55 in 2011, 45% of active members attained their applicable Minimum Sum (in cash or cash plus property). In 2012, this statistic increased to 48.7%.

Sources

Source : Facutally : How can I use my CPF money? What are the myths and facts surrounding our CPF savings?

__________________________________________________

бесплатная регистрация сайта в поисковикахванная комната дизайн фотосеренгети национальный парк altezza travel

The post How can I use my CPF money? What are the myths and facts surrounding our CPF savings? appeared first on SGHardTruth.

The True Cost of Living in Singapore

$
0
0

By Tim Wong – June 24, 2015 at 12:12pm

So very often, repeatedly I hear people complaining about how expensive property is, or how expensive our cars are. It is true that our the ultimate quantum of our property is very expensive here, but so very often, people forgot to factor other things like interest rates, appreciation, education, child care, etc, which more accurately reflects the true cost of living.

For example, we may argue that in places like Thailand and Australia, property prices are really cheap. You can buy a sub-prime 1 bedroom condo in Sukhumvit for $100k, or a nice landed 5 bedroom in Perth for $400k. In comparison, a 5 room HDB flat in any district in Singapore will knock us off about $400k at least.

However, we tend to overlook that interest rates in other countries like Thailand easily hit 5% per annum, as compared to our sub 2% interest. That measly additional 2-3% interest will translate to an additional $300k over a 30 year period. If you couple with the fact that property prices are relatively not as stable as compared to Singapore, you are looking at negative gain over a 10-20 year period.

That means that in Singapore, we suffer a less chance of negative gain over 10-20 year period even if we take out a loan because of our low interest rate environment. Plus, we have no capital gains tax. That is amazing.

Having said that, it also means that if you buy a property overseas outright without loans, it will also make the most economic sense. Because the interest is pretty high. Over 30 years, 5% will cost you 3 houses. You will spend $900k on a $300k house for the entire 30 years. I find it hard to imagine a property appreciating 3 times its cost.

Food is extremely cheap in Singapore, perhaps just slightly more than Thailand. Dollar to dollar, we are perhaps even cheaper than Malaysia, especially when you consider the GDP difference of both countries. In Singapore, a nice plate of chicken rice will only set you back $3. Try looking for something like the western parts of the world.
Our cars are extremely expensive, no doubt. That’s possibly the only thing that costs so much. However, interestingly, our toll rates and parking is actually pretty cheap, as compared to other countries. Our fuel and COE are ridiculous though. It’s the single biggest ticket item for any Singaporean.

This also means that if you cast cars aside, the cost of living in Singapore is actually not very high, especially when you look at the fact that we almost never lose money off our HDB properties, have low interest rate environments, low taxes, have cheap and good food everywhere. I think that it is our monetary pursuit that makes us think that we have very little…. when we actually have a lot.

Quite often, a lot of my friends think that I make a lot of money. But the reality is that I don’t spend a lot; I am very careful with my money. I don’t buy big ticket items, I know of many places with free parking and I will walk for cheap parking. When I’m eating alone, I’ll go for $3.50 macaroni or $5 beef noodles, not because they are cheap, but because the cheap food is in fact more delicious than restaurant fare so very often.

There are tons of good and cheap things all over Singapore. It’s just that society has made us compare and compete with one another in the quest for material goods. We work endlessly day after day, forgetting the importance of setting time for our family, friends and loved ones, and indulge in things that sap our money away like hostess pubs and expensive holidays.

Over the years, I realized that we don’t need a lot to be happy. Money seldom buys us lasting happiness. To be happy is to experience the goodness of life, and find meaning in what we do. We cannot find meaning in things, nor in complaining about things.

Singapore is a great country with some silly things. Then again, which country doesn’t? We are bred as an impatient lot, but our forefathers have gave their lives to build a wonderful land for us and our children. You can buy a new HDB with $0 cash, get almost free education for primary/secondary kids, get tax-incentives and rebates for starting businesses, almost no corruption in our country, and you can walk around 3-5 am in the morning with hardly any danger to you.

The true cost, isn’t that high after all.

Source – https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-wong/the-true-cost-of-living-in-singapore/10152834404607063?fref=nf

The post The True Cost of Living in Singapore appeared first on SGHardTruth.

Is The Rental Too High For Hawker Stall

$
0
0

Parliament Q&A

Speech by Ms Grace Fu, Second Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Committee of Supply Debate, 11 March 2015 (Section B)

Date Published: 11 Mar 2015

C      Hawker Centres

1.      李美花议员, 杨木光议员, 颜添宝议员和林谋泉议员提出了有关小贩中心的询问。(Translation)Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have asked for updates on our hawker centres.

2.      小贩中心是国人日常生活中不可或缺的基础设施。它不只是小贩们谋生的地方,更是大家享用卫生,价廉物美的本地美食的好去处。环境及水源部通过多管齐下的方式,确保小贩中心的食品维持大众化的价格。(Translation)Our hawker centres are an essential social infrastructure – they provide a cleanand hygienic environment for our hawkers to ply their trade and enable Singaporeans access to good food at affordable prices. Several of MEWR’s recent policy changes achieve this objective of ensuring that hawker centre food prices remain affordable.

3.      当小贩在制定食物价格时,他必须考虑多方面的因素。这里我们显示着通过一个调查,环境部每年都会访问一千多名小贩的运作方式。从这些访问调查中,我们得知小贩的营运成本超过一半是源至食物原材料。相比之下,小贩摊位租金所占的成本比率只占百分之12左右。那个是第三个部分,第一个是原材料(raw materials), 第二个部分是人力的这个成本(manpower), 第三个部分就是租金(stall rental)。(Translation)In determining the price for his or her food, a hawker has to consider many factors. We conduct an annual survey on more than 1,000 hawkers’ operations, and have found that raw materials typically comprise more than 50% of hawkers’ costs. Rentals form a much smaller proportion of costs for hawkers at about 12% of total costs. That is actually the third component (of hawkers’ costs). The first is raw materials, the second is manpower and the third is stall rental.

Cost Component of Hawker Stalls

Cost Component of Hawker Stalls

4.      我们以大巴窑的六个小贩中心为例,摊位的平均租金每个月是650元。其中过半的摊主只付320元或更低的租金,他们当中大多是获得政府津贴的摊主。如果不包括这些受津贴的摊位在内,那么,这6个小贩中心的平均租金就是大约1100元左右。这比起周围的咖啡店或是食阁摊位的租金来得低。(Translation)For instance, average rentals of the six hawker centres in Toa Payoh were around $650, with more than half of the stalls, primarily those on subsidised rents, paying $320 or less. If we exclude them, average rentals are around $1,100, which still compares favourably to the coffee shops or food courts nearby.

5.      实际上,全国所有小贩中心有超过百分之85的摊位,每个月租金不到1500元。那些月租超过1500元的摊位,其实在那个图面上看是非常小的一部分。他们这些摊位其实一般上都是坐落在市中心地区,比如纽顿或麦士威小贩中心。由此可见,摊位租金并非决定小贩中心食物价格的主要因素。尽管如此,政府在过去几年还是调整了多项措施,来调控小贩摊位的租金,以减低租金的压力。(Translation)In fact, over 85% of hawkers in our hawker centres pay less than $1,500 per month in rent. As you can see from the pie chart, rentals make up a very small proportion of cost. Rentals higher than this are typically found in hawker centres that are in the city, such as at Newton or Maxwell. Therefore, there is little substantive evidence to say that rentals are the main driver of hawker food prices. Nevertheless, the Government has made several policy changes over the last few years to moderate rentals, to ensure that it does not put upward pressure on food prices over time.

Distribution of Hawker Stall Rentals

Distribution of Hawker Stall Rentals

6.      首先, 从2012年4月起,新摊主已不允许转租或顶让摊位。至于那些没有获得津贴的摊主,有三年的宽限期来做调整。如今宽限期就要满了。从今年4月1日起,所有非津贴的摊主,都必须亲自经营摊位。而获得政府津贴的摊主,则一向来都是不准转租的。(Translation)Firstly,sub-letting or assignment of stalls is disallowed for stall-holders. This policy took effect for new stall-holders from April 2012 while the existing non-subsidised stall-holders were given a grace period of three years from April 2012 to comply. This means that from 1 April 2015, all non-subsidised stall-holders will have to personally operate their stalls. Subsidised stall-holders are already not permitted to sublet their stalls.

7.      从2012年4月到目前为止,新小贩摊主总共超过1,900人。环境局执行新条例后,已向其中64个没有亲自经营摊位的摊主采取行动。根据条例,摊主如果没有自己经营摊位,可算违例, 会被终止租约。我们必须严格执行这项条例,以确保摊位是留给真正亲自经营熟食摊的小贩,让他们能避免支付不必要的转租费,以较低的租金经营摊位。(Translation)Since April 2012, more than 1,900 new cooked food stall-holders have taken up stalls in our hawker centres. NEA has taken action against 64 stallholders for not operating their stalls personally. Stall-holders who do not regularise these requirements promptly will have their tenancy terminated. By enforcing against those who sub-let their stalls, we are freeing the stalls up for those who are genuine hawkers, and ensure they pay lower rentals by cutting out the sub-letting profit.

8.      第二,从2012年3月起,我们不再为招标摊位设定租金底价,而是由市场需求来决定摊位租金。这项措施让投标的小贩得以受惠,一些熟食摊位的成功投标价只有区区1块钱。(Translation)Secondly, we removed the concept of Reserve Rent in our tendering exercises since March 2012 to allow stall rentals to fully reflect market conditions. This has benefitted hawkers, with some cooked food stalls awarded at bids as low as $1.

9.      总的来说,这些措施已经取得了成效。去年,新摊位的平均成功标价比过去来得低。至于那些非津贴的摊主,经过专业的评估后,他们去年所需付的平均市场租金,增幅也大为放缓。(Translation)The results of these measures have been bearing fruit – average tendered rents for new stalls have declined over the whole of 2014. The rate of increase in rentals in 2014 for stalls that pay assessed market rents has also moderated.

10.      为了把价廉卫生的小贩美食带给更多居民,我们于2011年宣布了未来十年内,兴建10个小贩中心的计划。这里显示了两个地方, 这是位于武吉班让和后港的新小贩中心,将会在今年内开张营业。职总富食客将会以非盈利管理模式,经营武吉班让小贩中心。(Translation)To further increase the number of stalls, and to have hawker food available in many areas, we announced in 2011 that we will build 10 new hawker centres over 10 years. From the pictures, you can see that the first two new hawker centres in Bukit Panjang and Hougang will be opened this year. NTUC Foodfare will be managing the Bukit Panjang hawker centre using a non-prof   it operating model.

First two new hawker centres in Bukit Panjang and Hougang

First two new hawker centres in Bukit Panjang and Hougang

11.      我们希望通过管理代理的经营模式,引进新业者和经营方式,吸取它们经营饮食业和产业管理方面的经验;从而为居民带来更多的食物选择,更好的用餐体验,也继续保持价格经济实惠。刚才杨木光议员他问了,对于这样的模式是否是有了一些结论。那因为他们这个营业时间很短, 就是刚开始的一个做法, 所以我们将会留心的关查, 而过一阵子才能下结论。(Translation)We hope that by inviting managing agents to operate our new hawker centres, they will bring new ideas as well as their experience in food and beverage operations, property and lease management, to diversify food options, enhance the dining experience at the hawker centres, while still keeping food prices affordable. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also enquired about our assessment of using managing agents to manage hawker centres. Given that managing agents have had limited time operating hawker centres and this is a relatively new approach, we are closely assessing the results before making any conclusions on their approach.

12.      除了管理经营武吉班让小贩中心之外,职总富食客也经营勿洛镇中心 (Bedok Town) 一个原本属于“贩者有其摊”计划下的小贩中心。位于阿裕尼2道第117座组屋、锦茂路第20座组屋和西海岸通道第503座组屋的另外三个“贩者有其摊”计划下的小贩中心,契约已在去年5月到期,目前由环境局管理。(Translation)NTUC Foodfare also manages a former “sold centre” in Bedok Town Centre, while three other former sold centres at Block 117 Aljunied Ave 2, Block 20 Ghim Moh Road and Block 503 West Coast Drive whose leases expired in May last year are now managed by NEA.

13.      林谋泉议员询问,“贩者有其摊计划”契约到期的小贩,当局会为他们做出哪些安排。我想请林议员放心,也请受影响的摊主们放心。有意继续经营的摊主,将可继续营业。原本获得津贴的小贩,将能继续支付现行的津贴租金。非津贴的摊主则可以选择以当前的市场租金继续营业。无论是哪一种管理模式,小贩中心的宗旨始终如一,那就是为大众提供价廉物美、干净卫生的美食。(Translation)I would like to assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that all stall owners at “sold centres” whose leases have expired and are interested to continue their businesses will have the option to do so. Stall-holders who were previously on the subsidised scheme will pay current subsidised rental rates. Stall-holders who were not previously subsidised will pay the prevailing market rental. Regardless of the management model adopted, the fundamental objectives of hawker centres in providing affordable, hygienic food will be maintained.

14.      其余8个新的小贩中心,将在未来几年逐步落成。在这个过程中,我们会咨询当地区居民的意见。回应李美花议员和费绍尔议员的询问,位于义顺的小贩中心将在今年开始动工,并预计会在2017年竣工。其中这个准备的工作,是花了多点时间,那是因为有当地的要求, 特别是在这个停车场上方面做了多次的讨论,多次的考虑, 所以在准备功夫方面,我们是尽量吸取当地的议员和居民们给我们提供的意见。(Translation)The remaining eight new centres will be progressively completed over the next few years. We will work in consultation with the local community to meet their needs. Er Lee Bee Wah and Associate Professor Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim may wish to note that construction works for the centre at Yishun will commence later this year and will be completed by 2017. Preparation work requires more time, so as to meet local needs, particularly in discussions on the issue of the carpark. We are trying our best to take into consideration the suggestions given by the local MPs and residents.

15.      徇众要求,我们将扩大兴建小贩中心的计划,让更多居民受益。我在这里宣布,政府将在2027年底之前,再增建10个小贩中心。 这些新的小贩中心将分布在新组屋区,或是饮食设施不足的组屋区。其中5个地点已经敲定,那就是:比达达利、盛港、蔡厝港、武吉班让以及武吉巴督。其余5个小贩中心的地点,将稍后公布。加上之前已经公布的10个小贩新中心,我们总共将增添超过800个熟食摊位,相信这有助于进一步调控租金价格, 也把我们非常熟悉,喜欢的小贩美食带给更多的居民。(Translation)As we are making good progress on the 10 new centres, we will do more. I am pleased to announce that the Government will be building an additional 10 new hawker centres by 2027. They will be located in new estates or in existing ones that are relatively under-served. We have identified the towns for five of these new centres – Bidadari, Sengkang, Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Panjang and Bukit Batok. The locations of the remaining hawker centres will be made known later in the year. Altogether, the 20 new centres will inject an additional supply of more than 800 cooked food stalls and we believe this will help to further moderate rentals and also bring more tasty and popular hawker food to the residents.

16.      林谋泉议员和杨木光议员提出了改进小贩中心清洁水平的问题。目前,全国绝大多数的小贩中心归建屋局所有,这些小贩中心的一般清洁工作,由市镇理事会负责。至于清理桌面的工作,则是由小贩中心的摊主负责,而这类工作一般上会通过小贩商会,外包给清洁承包商。(Translation)Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also enquired about the cleanliness of hawker centres. The majority are owned by the HDB and thus the Town Councils undertake the general cleaning. The hawkers undertake the table-cleaning function, usually through out-sourcing by the Hawker Association on behalf of the individual stall-holders.

17.      多数的市镇理事会和小贩商会,都能够做好清洁工作。可是有些地方仍有改善的空间,例如可以通过整合一般的清洁工作和桌面清理工作的外包合约,来取得更好的规模经济效益。各市镇理事会可以考虑也接管小贩中心内,清理桌面的外包工作,进一步提升市镇内公共场所的清洁水平。(Translation)Most Town Councils and Hawker Associations have been managing their responsibilities well. For the rest, there is potential for better outcomes and economies of scale by integrating the general cleaning and table-cleaning contracts. The Town Councils should consider taking over the table-cleaning contracts at these centres as part of their effort to enhance the cleanliness of all common areas in the Town.

18.      林谋泉议员也提到碗碟归还计划。自2012年起,这项计划已在67个小贩中心推行,并会在今年底之前,推广到其余附有熟食摊的37个小贩中心。我们希望大家能继续支持这个计划,无论是在小贩中心,或是在其他饮食场所,都能培养起自动自发归还碗碟的好习惯。让我们共同努力,创造更干净、更舒适的用餐环境。(Translation)Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about the tray return initiative. Since 2012, tray return has been implemented in 67 hawker centres, and will be extended to the remaining 37 hawker centres with cooked food stalls by the end of the year. We hope that everyone will continue to lend their support by returning their utensils after meals, not just at hawker centres but also at other food establishments.

19.      刚才杨木光议员以一个非常有趣的打油诗献给了我们小贩部。 他的打油诗里面说了很多的项目,包括了食物的品质和价格等等。我觉得非常有趣。 那我也想以一个打油诗,回献给杨木光议员。 那我的诗是这样的说法: “小贩摊主用心炒,食物价格应该好,卫生条件不能少,十后加十全民好”。那小贩摊主用心炒是因为现在摊主都要亲自经营,不在是为了一个地主。不需要在烦着转租金,所以应该是更加能够为自己的生活取得一个更美好的一个回报,所以当然是用心来处理他的食物。但食物价格也应该是好的,因为我们通过种种的措施,已经把很多租金都陆陆续续地在调下。当然我们也要对小贩中心的摊主们给一个合理的价格,因为他们用心良苦,工作条件是非常有挑战性的,我们也应该对他们有一个公平的价格。卫生条件当然是不能够少的,非常重要。十个小贩中心之后,再加上十个,将会汇集更広泛的国民,所以“小贩摊主用心炒,食物价格应该好,卫生条件不能少,十后加十全民好”。(Translation)Just now, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang dedicated a very amusing poem about hawker centres, which covered areas such as the quality and prices of hawker food. I found it very interesting and would like to respond to Mr Yeo with my own poem. It is as follows: “hawkers cook with their hearts; food price should be good (for both customers and hawkers); public hygiene is a must; 10 more hawker centres after 10 will benefit all citizens”. Hawker stall-holders can cook with dedication because they are operating their stalls personally and do not need to worry about transferring rent. This will enable hawkers to get better returns for their efforts and improve their dedication towards the preparation of their food. Hawker food should also be priced reasonably because various measures have been implemented to progressively moderate rental costs. We also need to ensure that hawkers are reasonably compensated given their hard work and challenging working conditions. Hygiene obviously cannot be neglected as it is very important. The addition of 10 hawker centres to the 10 already planned will bond more Singaporeans together.

D      Waste Management

20.      Now, I will like to move on to update on our waste management strategies and measures. Singapore has limited land, yet we are producing waste at a significant rate. Last year, we generated about 7.5 million tonnes of waste, which is 50% more than ten years ago. If this trend continues, Semakau Landfill will run out of space in 20 years’ time. Many of us would still be around to see that day if this happens.

21.      Last year, we announced plans, as part of the Sustainable Singapore Blueprintto work towards becoming a ‘Zero Waste Nation’. By reducing consumption, and reusing and recycling as much waste as possible, we can conserve resources and free up space that would otherwise have been used for landfills. The Government will work with the community and businesses to make this our way of life.

22.      We must also continue to ensure that waste collection, disposal and treatment methods are safe and sanitary.

23.       Mr Charles Chong has talked about e-waste. Electronic and electrical products are becoming more and more ubiquitous. As they contain harmful substances, such as heavy metals, the improper disposal of electronic waste can affect public health. (For example, the
cadmium which can be found in rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries can accumulate in the human body upon exposure and cause lung and kidney damage in the long term.)

24.      To maintain a safe living environment for future generations, we are considering upstream controls by restricting the use of hazardous substances in certain electrical and electronic equipment. Importers and manufacturers will be required to comply with these restrictions. These controls will reduce the amount of hazardous substances getting into our waste stream and eventually entering Semakau Landfill. This will also improve the potential of recycling incineration ash which NEA is exploring.

25.      We will make it easier for everyone to safely recycle their e-waste. As you can see in the picture, we have the support of the industry stakeholders such as StarHub, DHL Express and TES-AMM. They are providing e-waste bins across the island for the convenience of members of the public. NEA will form a national voluntary e-waste recycling partnership programme. This will bring together stakeholders from the entire value chain, from producers to retailers to recyclers, to raise awareness and to provide better recycling infrastructure. I welcome companies and organisations joining this new partnership as we work towards its launch later this year.

E-waste Bin

E-waste Bin

26.      For the longer term, we will be studying options for a regulated system for treating and recycling electrical and electronic waste.

27.      Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang mentioned food waste. Food waste has increased by almost 50% over the past 10 years, and currently makes up about 10% of the waste we generate. As with electronic waste, food waste poses resource and environmental health concerns. Reducing food content in our general waste stream will help reduce smell and pest concerns. Upstream food waste segregation will also reduce contamination and enable greater recovery of other recyclable materials like plastic containers and cardboard cartons.

28.      One effective way to manage food waste is to avoid creating it in the first place. Consuming only what we need also makes us more resilient against food security risks. In September 2014, NEA and AVA commissioned a survey on consumer attitudes and behaviour regarding food waste. We will study the findings when it is ready, to formulate strategies to cut food waste. NEA and AVA are also working with the industry to develop good practice guides for food manufacturing and retailing.

29.      We can also improve our management and recycling of food waste.  Companies who wish to invest in technology to improve their food waste management can consider tapping on our existing funding schemes such as NEA’s 3R Fund. Only 13% of all food waste is recycled today. NEA will conduct food waste recycling pilots at two hawker centres to raise recycling rates, and to try out different onsite recycling models. A district-level pilot will also be conducted at Clementi, where food waste collected from multiple premises will be sent to a centralised recycling facility for anaerobic co-digestion.

30.      Besides e-waste and food waste, we will also be enhancing one of our long-standing programmes – the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement (SPA) to reduce packaging waste. The SPA has been successful, currently having more than 160 signatories which have cumulatively reduced about 20,000 tonnes of packaging waste and saved more than $44 million in material costs of locally-consumed products.

31.      We will be extending the SPA to 2020 to continue the good progress we have made. The extended SPA will contain new initiatives, such as a database to allow producers to benchmark and realise the potential of reducing their packaging. We will also be introducing a logo to identify products with reduced packaging so that consumers can make informed choices.

32.      Finally, we want to help each of us recycle more at home. The domestic recycling rate in 2013 was around 20%. Much more can be done to reach our goal of 30% in 2030. To achieve this, the ‘last mile connection’ for residents will be crucial. All HDB estates now have one recycling bin per block. To make recycling even more convenient, since 2014, all new HDB blocks have been designed with centralised chutes for recyclables on every floor.

33.      I am glad that Ms Rita Soh supports this and had suggested during the Budget Debate that we extend centralised chutes for recyclables to private estates and embrace the use of Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems. We agree that we should move in this direction, and will consult the industry further on this. In some residential developments such as Parc Emily and One Shenton by City
Developments Limited (CDL), such facilities are already voluntarily incorporated. We want more developments to go this way, and do more to encourage their residents to recycle.

34.      Mr Pritam Singh suggested replacing single-use plastic bags with biodegradable ones. Indeed, there are some countries such as
France and Italy that strongly encourage the use of biodegradable plastic bags because their waste is landfilled and the plastic bags would remain in the landfill for many decades. However, we do not share this concern in Singapore as our plastic bags are incinerated safely and not landfilled. Nonetheless, we still encourage shoppers to reduce excessive use of plastic bags and to use reusable bags as much as possible.

35.      Minister Vivian will now touch on the topic of water and conclude the response for our Ministry.

Source –  http://www.mewr.gov.sg/news/speech-by-ms-grace-fu–second-minister-for-the-environment-and-water-resources–committee-of-supply-debate–11-march-2015-section-b

The post Is The Rental Too High For Hawker Stall appeared first on SGHardTruth.

TOC Spreading Falsehood That Foreigners Are Allowed To Drive Taxi

$
0
0
Expose the lie…let truth prevails…
11717311_843404469079281_5566725651516682571_o

TOC Spreading Falsehood That Foreigners Are Allowed To Drive Taxi

With election just round the corner, the campaign has begun in the alternative sites to turn votes away from the PAP government either with old news reported as ‘breaking news’ to mislead or just outright lies.Here is an example of a lie.Workers’ Party’s proxy, TOC (The Online Citizen) published an ‘appeal’ by an anonymous taxi driver to fellow taxi drivers (an article linked from TRE) to vote for the opposition because of the ‘new phenomenon of seeing “foreigners” entering the Industry.

THE TRUTH
Only Singaporeans are eligible to be taxi drivers.

http://www.taxi.org.sg/tdvl.html

What Singaporeans Say?

If there are proof, please show it. Cos my dad is a taxi-driver and he had never talked about foreigners in this industry. The only foreigners are those new citizens.
I took taxi and ask taxi drivers and they say only citizens are taxi drivers…
Opposition=opportunity $$$ ! Huat hur
APHETC $25 million contract given to His Friend just After GE2011 ! Our Ministers have to work how many years to earn $25 million dollars ! WP=HUAT party
Oxymoron
 Ironic isn’t it?
 Source –  https://www.facebook.com/SingaporeMatters/photos/a.710662802353449.1073741828.710654255687637/843404469079281/?type=1                                                                                                                    
 Image –  Today Online

 

The post TOC Spreading Falsehood That Foreigners Are Allowed To Drive Taxi appeared first on SGHardTruth.

What Singaporeans’ Say About Raise GST Rumours

$
0
0

Since yesterday, this piece of raise GST rumours has been circulating in social media.

Bertha Henson

Some misinformation going around that the GST gonna be raised to 10 per cent after GE. Someone even bothered to make stickers to Say no to GST rise and to vote wisely. Seems SDP distributed copies during a walkabout? I suppose TECHNICALLY, it won’t be wrong because any rise MUST come after the GE but how long after is something else because Mr Tharman already said he’ll hold it steady. Finance ministry has come out to refute it.

Looks like we’re gonna be hearing/reading more scary stuff – and yes, we should vote wisely than get swayed by catchy (false) slogans

Ministry of Finance has clarified that there is no basis to claims that the Government will raise GST after the next general election to fund increased spending. Read more here: http://str.sg/ZnMP

What Singaporeans Say?

Kelvin Tan Given how many goodies opposition parties are offering, like free education, lowered transport costs, cheaper housing, et al, you’d expect that an Opposition-led government would be the ones needing to raise GST, actually. #moneydoesntgrowontrees· 18 · Likes
Felix Oen Bertha I think GST increase has been on the cards for some years. Last increase 2007. So effectively, it’s been 8 years, I think they held it back at last GE. This time round it’s highly probably they will do it maybe in 2016/17. · 5 ·Likes
Bertha Henson The thing is, some things are bound to go up sooner or later – whether its the PAP or the Opposition in charge. If it’s Say No to GST rise, so its Say Yes to Income Tax rise? What about say Yes to Higher Wages? Say No to lower/higher inflation? I seriously dont think we should be tying anybody’s hands with electoral threats and parties would be silly to make promises they can’t keep. How can a country be governed this way? · 28 · Likes
Larry Charles Medina Is everybody forgetting that income tax on top earners is going up? So, yes, there will be selective increases in taxes. And, last GE, the PAP said no rise in GST and there was no rise. · 8 · Likes
Jeffrey Yeo Don’t pay GST? Pay more income tax lah. You want to do with Coe? Deal with congestion lor. Alternative governments do not mean you get a free pass to enjoy everything society gives to you but not give any more back in return. Deal with it. · 14 · Likes
Wee Kwee Huat But I also can safely say, without the PAP in government, the GST surely rise. · 9 · Likes
Calvin Cheng

It’s ironic how the people who are asking for more social spending are also the ones scaremongering about higher taxes in order to win votes.

In western democracies at least the parties who ask for more spending are honest – they also campaign for higher taxes.

Would like to see some of these Santa Claus politicians be honest for once in these elections.

Go up to stage, promise the people more, promise to narrow the income gap, but also say you need to tax the people more.

See who votes for you!

News Report From ST

No basis to claims of GST hike: MOF

There is no basis to claims that the Government will raise the goods and services tax (GST) after the next general election to fund increased spending, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has said.

Such claims, which have been made on some websites, are inconsistent with what the Government recently stated, the ministry said in a post on the Government’s website www.gov.sg

Stickers with the slogan “Say No to 10 per cent GST – vote wisely” and incorporating the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) logo have been seen distributed. Copies of one such sticker were distributed at a Singapore Democratic Party walkabout in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC on Friday.

n its post, the Finance Ministry said that in the debate in Parliament on the Budget in February, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said the increased spending planned for the rest of this decade is sufficiently provided for by measures that the Government had already taken.

For instance, Temasek Holdings will be included in the Net Investment Returns framework starting from next year, a move that will allow the Government to draw on up to 50 per cent of Temasek’s long-term expected returns.

Also, the top marginal income tax rate for those earning above $320,000 a year will be increased from 20 per cent to 22 per cent for taxes to be paid in 2017. This is expected to raise government revenue by $400 million a year.

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam speaking at an Institute of Policy Studies forum. PHOTO: ST FILE

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam speaking at an Institute of Policy Studies forum. PHOTO: ST FILE

NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MEASURES

In its post, the Finance Ministry said that in the debate in Parliament on the Budget in February, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said the increased spending planned for the rest of this decade is sufficiently provided for by measures that the Government had already taken.

“These measures came after moves in recent years to make Singapore’s property tax rates more progressive, with significantly increased tax rates for high-value residential properties, offsetting reduced tax rates for lower-value homes,” the statement added.

GST of 3 per cent was introduced in Singapore on April 1, 1994. It was raised to 4 per cent in 2003, and to 5 per cent in 2004. In July 2007, it was again adjusted to its current rate of 7 per cent.

Talk of a GST hike cropped up ahead of the 2011 General Election as well, and that was also dispelled by the Government. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stepped in at the time, as he and fellow PAP MPs distributed fliers to residents stating there would be no such rise.

Chong Zi Liang

 

Source:  http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/no-basis-to-claims-of-gst-hike-mof#xtor=CS1-10  https://www.facebook.com/calvinchengnmp?fref=nf        https://www.facebook.com/bertha.henson.54/posts/548415978630523?pnref=story  https://www.facebook.com/bertha.henson.54?fref=ts)

The post What Singaporeans’ Say About Raise GST Rumours appeared first on SGHardTruth.

Viewing all 32 articles
Browse latest View live