Connect with us

Comments

Instead of handling out CPF bonus, netizens urged PAP government to abandon GST hike amid rising living costs

During Singapore’s National Day Rally on Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong unveiled the Majulah Package aimed at boosting retirement savings for lower-middle-income citizens aged 50 and above.

Netizens, sharing their views online, voice concerns about living costs and question if the package can counter impending GST effects, while highlighting challenges faced by the “sandwiched generation.”

Published

on

During the National Day Rally on Sunday (20 Aug), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore introduced the Majulah Package, a novel initiative designed to enhance retirement savings for Singaporeans aged 50 and above in the lower and middle-income brackets.

Under this plan, they will be eligible for an annual CPF bonus of up to S$1,000, provided they continue to remain in the workforce.

Individuals who have not yet met the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) within the Central Provident Fund (CPF) will receive a one-time CPF Bonus of S$1,500.

Furthermore, those aged 50 and above will receive an additional one-time MediSave Bonus of S$1,000.

Targeted at those born in 1973 or earlier, the three-part Majulah Package will cost the Government about S$7 billion and it will benefit those with lower incomes and less wealth.

Approximately 1.4 million older Singaporeans, translating to over eight in every ten Singapore citizens aged 50 and above in 2023, are projected to gain from this package.

In addressing the cohort referred to as “young seniors,” encompassing individuals born between 1950 and 1959, as well as those born in 1949 or earlier, PM Lee observed that while this demographic generally experienced relative prosperity due to Singapore’s growth, their earnings lag behind those of the younger workforce.

This group also faces a shorter window to leverage the enhancements to the CPF system and amass sufficient retirement funds.

The Majulah Package, as outlined by PM Lee, seeks to alleviate concerns regarding retirement, particularly as this age group juggles the responsibilities of caregiving for both younger and older family members.

The package’s primary component, the Earn and Save Bonus, offers a yearly CPF bonus ranging between S$400 and S$1,000 to lower- and middle-income workers, contingent on their continued employment.

This bonus, in addition to the regular contributions from both the employer and employee, will be credited to the recipient’s CPF account.

Persisting uncertainty amidst escalating costs of living in Singapore

While sharing their opinions on mainstream media platforms such as The Straits Times and CNA‘s Facebook posts, netizens have expressed apprehension about the cost of living.

They remain uncertain whether the announced package will be sufficient to offset the far-reaching impact of the rising goods and services tax (GST) on all ordinary Singaporeans, particularly those from the low and middle-income groups.

Illustrating this, Suresh Kumar, a netizen, highlighted an imminent challenge: the impending 9% GST implementation in the following year.

Adding to this, there’s a prevailing worry regarding a potential surge in prices by vendors, an increase that could range from 5% to 10%.

Suresh Kumar’s tone turned pessimistic as he remarked, “Everything will be taken back.” This sentiment conveys the fear that gains made might be effectively countered.

The GST rate will increase from 7 to 9% in two stages – one percentage point each time on Jan 1, 2023 and Jan 1, 2024.

Another netizen argued how much government subsidies should be deemed sufficient. In response, Kumar countered whether the financial aid provided truly covers the escalating cost of living?

His emphasis was on being pragmatic and not blindly aligning with political stances.

He elaborated further with a tangible example, stating, “For instance, a cup of black coffee at the neighborhood café used to cost S$1.40. By December, it increased to S$1.50, and then by the following January, it was S$1.60. This was the situation around the same time last year.” Kumar forecasted that this pattern is likely to recur.

 

Netizens asked PM Lee to do away GST hike as a real solution to rising cost of living

In spite of PM Lee’s assurance, a netizen continues to harbor doubts about the effectiveness of these measures in assisting the intended group to manage the burdens and tensions of daily life, particularly given that the sums are deposited into their CPF accounts.

Truthfully, even with this provision, it is estimated to amount to less than $3 per day. This stands in contrast to the backdrop of heightened GST that affects every facet of expenditure.

Another Singaporean individual expressed gratitude for the Majulah package, yet also conveyed a preference for an alternative approach.

He indicated that it would be more favorable if the government could eliminate GST for essential goods, and reduce rents for hawker centers, Certificates of Entitlement (COEs), and electricity tariffs.

These measures, he believes, might have the potential to mitigate the escalation in costs for transportation, food, and utilities.

Tax the “wants” and don’t tax the “needs”

Another comment raised doubts about the prevailing taxation policies of the current PAP government.

The individual with the user name “Hui Tin” put forth a suggestion that, despite the subsidies unveiled by PM Lee, a more effective approach would involve exempting food and essential items from taxation.

This way, it would prove more beneficial than providing monetary assistance while simultaneously imposing taxes.

“Tax the “wants” and don’t tax the “needs,”,” the comment proposed a principle of taxing non-essential or luxury items while refraining from taxing necessities that are vital for daily living.

Conversely, another netizen presented a counterargument by pointing out that affluent individuals also purchase essential goods and food, which raises the question of how to approach this matter while ensuring wealth redistribution.

In response to this concern, Hui Tin highlighted that the current taxation approach involves taxing both the top 20% and the 80% comprising middle and low-income groups.

 

Netizens ridiculed the concept of “retirement” might as well be erased from the Singaporean vocabulary

In the context of the “Earn and Save” Bonus, PM Lee announced that ‘young seniors’ who continue to work would be eligible for an annual CPF bonus of up to S$1,000.

Some netizens humorously suggest that given PM Lee’s encouragement for seniors to remain employed, perhaps the concept of ‘retirement’ should be removed from the vocabulary of Singaporeans.

An astute netizen brought attention to a pertinent issue, stressing the importance of providing meaningful assistance to seniors.

The comment asserted that rather than consistently urging seniors to remain in the workforce without an endpoint, there should be a focus on genuinely aiding them.

This is particularly crucial for individuals facing medical conditions that hinder their ability to work.

The netizen underscored the significance of allowing seniors to savor their golden years and experience the joys of retirement. The call is for a delicate equilibrium between supporting seniors and ensuring their overall well-being.

Strategic support for employment

In a thoughtful comment, a perspective on a multifaceted approach emerges.

The comment raises an important concern about the potential impact of technological advancements, which could potentially lead to a sudden and steep decline in the availability of jobs across various sectors.

The netizen suggests a comprehensive strategy that encompasses not only aiding individuals in the immediate aftermath of job loss but also fostering an environment where businesses are supported to create new employment opportunities.

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

Comments

Redditors blame driving school shortages, not bots, for booking woes in Singapore

A Reddit thread has critiqued Singapore’s driving schools for long wait times, arguing that limited capacity—not bots—is the real issue. Redditors question government restrictions on private instructors and suggest inefficiencies are driving up costs for learners.

Published

on

A Reddit thread has surfaced in response to a Channel News Asia (CNA) article published on 12 September, which highlighted the growing problem of internet bots being used to book practical driving lessons in Singapore.

The CNA article points out that driving schools like the Singapore Safety Driving Centre, ComfortDelGro Driving Centre, and Bukit Batok Driving Centre are struggling to manage the post-pandemic surge in sign-ups, with waiting times now stretching from two to six months for practical lessons.

Redditors highlight deeper issues beyond bots

While the CNA article focused on the ethical concerns of bot usage and the efforts by schools like ComfortDelGro to mitigate these activities through CAPTCHA and AI algorithms, Redditors argue that the real issue lies in the limited capacity of driving schools, which has remained stagnant for years despite the growing demand.

One Redditor summed up the issue succinctly: “I think the problem is very clear, and it’s not the bots. Despite the growth in population size and the number of lanes on the road, I don’t think our driving school capacity has increased much over the last 2 decades.”

This view reflects a shared frustration with the limited availability of lessons, rather than the bots being the core problem.

Intentional restrictions?

Another thread participant speculated that these capacity limitations might be intentional, aligning with Singapore’s long-standing goal of becoming a car-lite society.

This commenter remarked: “I thought this was intentional to make it harder to learn to drive. Coupled with the fact that they’ve stopped giving out new private driving instructor licenses since forever.”

This sentiment resonated with other Redditors, who pointed out that restricting driving access through such methods might be an indirect way of discouraging car ownership without implementing more obvious or direct measures.

A common theme throughout the discussion was the call for more private driving instructors, as their dwindling numbers have exacerbated the problem. The CNA article notes that Singapore stopped issuing new licenses for private driving instructors in 1987, and only around 300 private instructors remain today.

Redditors expressed frustration over this restriction, with one saying: “Opening the doors for more private driving instructors would solve a lot of this crazy pent-up demand… I can’t understand why TP [Traffic Police] refuses to consider this when their 3 authorized schools are run like a shitshow.”

Others echoed this call, questioning why the private route isn’t expanded when the schools are clearly overwhelmed.

The CNA article reported that bots are used to snap up slots when other learners cancel bookings, often leaving regular students scrambling to secure lessons.

Many Redditors shared their personal frustrations with the booking systems, with one user stating: “I remember many years back when I took my lessons, it was already very hard to book… In the end I wrote a script to help me to book lessons and I could complete in a much shorter timeframe.”

Another user mentioned: “I enrolled in February, it’s September now, and I can’t even get a single slot for my 3A.”

These anecdotes reflect a widespread sense of exasperation with a system that many feel has not adapted to meet current demand.

Allegations of inefficiency

Some Redditors also questioned whether driving schools have any incentive to resolve these issues, accusing them of benefiting from drawn-out processes and high fees.

One participant commented: “The school instructors have no relationship with the student and are paid to just go through lessons like a robot rather than concentrating on the student’s weaknesses. Meanwhile the school has an incentive to drag the process out as long as possible to collect as much fees as possible.”

This view paints a picture of inefficiency and potential exploitation, adding to the frustrations of those trying to obtain their driving licenses.

The broader impact of Singapore’s car-lite policy

Several Redditors tied the bot controversy to Singapore’s broader push for a car-lite society, with one remarking: “They’re probably thinking: it’s part of the system to discourage cars on the road… TP failed lots of people, that’s why they have so much backlog.”

Some users felt that discouraging people from learning to drive could lead to long-term issues, with one suggesting that the difficulty in obtaining a license might ultimately reduce the number of private hire vehicles (PHVs) on the road: “All this is doing in the long run is making taxis extinct faster and possibly creating an issue years from now where there aren’t enough PHVs around because most Singaporeans gave up learning how to drive.”

The Reddit thread responding to the CNA article reveals that many Singaporeans believe the issues with booking driving lessons run deeper than just bots.

The root causes—limited capacity, intentional restrictions, and inefficiency—are seen as part of a broader challenge in Singapore’s car-lite ambitions.

Redditors are calling for reforms, such as more private instructors and greater transparency, to address the growing frustrations around learning to drive in Singapore.

Continue Reading

Comments

Halimah Yaacob proposes classifying platform workers as employees for enhanced protections

Former Singapore President Halimah Yaacob hailed the Platform Workers Bill as a “good start” for protecting gig workers but suggested a simpler approach: classifying some platform workers as employees for automatic labour law, social security, and union protections. She emphasised that the current system, which leaves workers bearing all risks and costs, is unsustainable and adversely affects their future and families.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Former Singapore President Halimah Yaacob has lauded the recently passed Platform Workers Bill as a “good start ” in protecting gig economy workers.

However, she suggested that a more straightforward approach would have been to classify platform workers who meet certain criteria as employees, thereby granting them automatic coverage under labour laws, social security protections, and union representation—an approach already adopted by some countries.

In her Facebook post, Halimah acknowledged the Bill’s role in addressing the vulnerabilities of platform work.

The legislation, effective from 2025, mandates increased Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for platform workers and provides enhanced work injury compensation and representation through union-like associations.

 

The parliamentary debate on September 9 and 10 centered on the distribution of costs—whether they will fall on platform workers, companies, or consumers.

Concerns were raised about the potential impact on consumers and the financial burden on platform companies.

Several MPs expressed worries about discrimination against workers who choose higher contributions and advocated for expanding the law to include other platform services such as domestic cleaning and caregiving.

Senior Minister of State for Manpower Koh Poh Koon reiterated that the protections are meant to level the playing field for businesses and ensure fair competition, while also preventing platform operators from passing the costs unfairly onto consumers or workers.

Madam Halimah highlighted how platform work can distort the pricing of goods and services, with consumers expecting low-cost, fast deliveries.

She noted that if platform workers were classified as employees, the costs of their protection—such as for sickness, business downtime, and social security—would be borne by employers and partially passed on to consumers.

She said It’s then up to us to decide whether to make use of such great convenience but at a certain price.

“It’s then up to the companies to properly factor in their costs to remain competitive as all other businesses are doing. It’s all about the business operating model that has fundamentally changed with the availability of platforms.”

Madam Halimah argued that since platform workers are essentially employees subject to company conditions, they should receive the same protections as other employees in terms of health, social security, and business downtime.

She pointed out that platform workers have been shouldering all the risks and costs, which is not sustainable and affects their ability to secure homes and plan for the future, impacting their families and future generations.

She also discussed the negative aspects of information technology and algorithms, referencing a case from a US fast-food chain where algorithms disrupt workers’ rest periods based on fluctuating customer demand.

The Platform Workers Bill defines platform workers as individuals who provide ride-hailing or delivery services for an online platform and are under the platform’s control.

According to data from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), there were approximately 70,500 platform workers in Singapore in 2023, accounting for about 3 percent of the workforce.

This total includes 22,200 taxi drivers, 33,600 private-hire drivers, and 14,700 delivery workers.

Continue Reading

Trending