Connect with us

Current Affairs

Budget 2014: The ground responds

Published

on

By Yasmeen Banu and Howard Lee
This year Budget’s speech, made by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, and broadcast live last Friday, focuses more on the elderly, education subsidies, and increase of median wages. The Pioneer Generation Package featured heavily, as much as increase in liquor, tobacco and betting excises drew laughter and applause in the House.
How have his proposals affected the intended recipients? TOC took a look across various online platforms to gather what the people think about Budget 2014.
Pioneer Generation Package
The Pioneer Generation Package drew not only the most comments, but the most varied comments – not surprising, given the time devoted to it. Much of it was also related to the rising cost of healthcare and the 3M system.
National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan responded to the announcement on Sunday, and said that the Budget and the Pioneer Generation Package “will go ways to ‘debunk’ the view that healthcare is not affordable for seniors…this is because of the greater healthcare subsidies seniors will be getting”.
Apparently, not all citizens agreed with him. Many referred to the base issue of rising healthcare costs and pointed out that such measures might not be necessary if these costs were better managed.
There were also concerns about whether the PGP might unfairly burden future generations, much as it is welcome relief for the elderly. Others were suspicious about whether the premiums for younger generation might be increased to cover for the expenditure. There was also scepticism about whether there would be complete and unfettered disbursement of the $8 billion fund, as much as there were doubts about the sufficiency of the package.
Clearly, the PGP was received with mixed feelings, across age groups.
Budget views - PGP 3M
Issues of inclusiveness
While most accepted that the PGP was necessary and morally a step in the right direction, commenters were also disappointed that the Budget mostly left out the middle income and working class. The benefit of the Budget to families was also called into question, with those in the “sandwiched class” touted as feeling the brunt.
The unhappiness seems to be directed at the Budget’s attempt to hand out freebies, which is then seen to be at the expense of everyday citizens. Some of these sentiments can also be found in grouses about medical costs, with some suspecting that the middle-aged working class will be forced to foot the bill for the PGP.
The efforts made to boost productivity were also deemed inadequate in helping the man on the street. Some viewed the various schemes proposed as ways to help corporations rather than citizens. In all, the proposals made to boost the economy, while lauded by the business community, did not go down well with citizens in general.

The extension of the PIC (Productivity and Innovation Credit) by another three years is much welcomed but small companies may be disappointed that there are no changes made to the level of cash payouts available.” – Ms Tan Bin Eng, Partner, Business Incentives Advisory, Ernst & Young Solutions LLP (as published on the EY website)
“The government is taking steps to strike a balance between pushing for economic growth while maintaining social equality and stability. This is an important recognition by the Government as otherwise, sustained growth is not possible.” – Ms Amy Ang, Partner, Financial Services Tax, Ernst & Young Solutions LLP (as published on the EY website)

Budegt views - inc
Excess of excise
While jokes were lobbed at the Finance Minister about his announcement on the increase of alcohol, tobacco and betting excises, these were equally matched with vehement rejection.
Some commenters were adamant that the tax will be ineffective in preventing drinking, smoking and gambling, but others also noted the glaring contrast to a complete lack of effort to increase the tax burden on the “big guys”. Corporate tax remains unmoved, which led some to lament that the increase in excises would only hurt consumers, line the government’s pocket and increase the cost of living.

How to damage an already overpriced F&B industry: Raise alcohol excise duties by 25 per cent when you look at the economic benefits bestowed on Hong Kong by the abolition of drinks or wine, this is a baffling move.” – David Sandison, Partner, PwC Singapore (as reported in AsiaOne)

Budget views - excise

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

on

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending