GST

新加坡将增加GST。。。人民有意见，但是相关部门发出的讯息就是—-这是为我们好的。

这星期，我们也见证香港和我们的不同。

Hong Kong govt caves in and drops plans for GST

Vince Chong, Hong Kong Correspondent

6 December 2006

Straits Times

English

(c) 2006 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

Financial chief acknowledges lack of public support

THE Hong Kong government has dropped plans to introduce a goods and services tax (GST) after it failed to win public support for a change in the city’s famously low-tax environment.

The decision came midway through a nine-month consultation period. It was announced by the city’s financial secretary Henry Tang yesterday morning.

‘It is clear from the views collected that we have not been able to convince the majority to accept GST,’ he said, referring to feedback from some 2,200 forms submitted by the public since the plan was proposed in July.

‘We accept that, at this time, there is insufficient public support, nor are the conditions right for introducing GST.’

The financial chief had proposed a 5 per cent GST, which was expected to raise HK$20 billion (S$3.9 billion) annually.

The main reason for the move, he said, was to remove Hong Kong’s traditional reliance on revenue from volatile sources, such as the property market, which fluctuate excessively during times like the Asian financial crisis.

A GST would also provide a more stable revenue base for an ageing population.

Mr Tang had sought to sweeten the deal by offering to offset any extra income from the GST through cuts in income and profit taxes. Financial handouts for low-income groups were also proposed.

Hong Kong currently levies a 16 per cent personal tax rate, with companies paying just 17.5 per cent, making it one of the most generous tax regimes anywhere – a point the government promotes in its efforts to attract businesses here.

But while many people recognised the need to broaden the tax base, as Mr Tang noted yesterday, the majority were against using the GST to do so.

Social activists spoke up against cutting profit taxes for money-making businesses in favour of a goods and services tax that will affect everyone, but particularly the poor.

Other critics feared that a GST would hurt Hong Kong’s attraction as a shopping paradise.

In a rare show of unity, both pro-government and opposition legislators joined hands against the proposal, voting 40-4 against it in October in a non-binding motion.

Street protests organised by the pro-Beijing Liberal Party and the opposition Democratic Party drew more than 7,000 people.

The reversal on the GST proposal followed a visit at the weekend by the head of the Chinese Parliament, Mr Wu Bangguo, who in the course of his meetings with officials encouraged them to focus on social harmony.

The government will now use the rest of the consultation period, which ends in March, to discuss alternatives to the GST.

Analysts say these include a ‘green tax’ on the consumption of such things as electricity and car tyres, linked to their impact on the environment.

vincec@sph.com.sg

Document STIMES0020061205e2c60000r

“Foreign talent”

外来“人才”一向来都是非常争议性的一个话题。虽然我们也是个移民社会，但是往往爱国意识、占有欲（等理由）都让人民无法接受来自国外的新移民。今天海峡时报言论版又有人来函提供观点。

 Foreign talents should deliver gold at Asiad

 BASED on recent reports and the way the foreign talents have been performing, it seems that most of the gold medals at the Asian Games will come from local athletes again. Even big names like Li Jiawei and Tao Li are expected to bag just bronze medals.

After the millions spent attracting them to Singapore, getting them coached and paying them, it is not unreasonable to expect them to deliver gold.

Local sporting officials excuse them for failing to deliver, saying that they are up against world-class talents. But, aren’t these foreign talents supposed to be world-class as well? If not, why bring them here in the first instance?

The foreign-talent scheme is flawed right from the start. Firstly, the best of the best in their country would not trade their passport for Singapore citizenship, if they could represent their national team.

When our people migrate to other countries, we brand them as ‘quitters’. On the other hand, we welcome foreign athletes who are not able to make it in their own country, calling them ‘foreign talents’.

Secondly, no matter how one disguises it, deep down they are still foreigners. They lack the same passion as local-born athletes. Majulah Singapura has very little meaning to them and they are likely to have more feelings for and affinity to their former compatriots than to Singaporeans.

In the past, Singapore had succeeded in developing world-class local athletes, like Tan Howe Liang, C. Kunalan and Ang Peng Siong. They competed against the best in the world and came out among the top. (At one time, Ang Peng Siong was the fastest 50m swimmer in the world, beating the best from the US and Australia.)

No one told them they were competing at the Olympic level, that the standards were a lot higher and they should not expect to win gold. No one told them they were minnows competing against the powerhouses of the US and China. They just went and did their best for their country and for themselves. They just focused on delivering results.

Our national bowlers are facing world-class competitors at the Asian Games. So, how is it that they can deliver and are not using the same excuses as table-tennis or badminton players? One need not look any farther than the place of birth of the athlete to know the reason.

爱国

ne海峡时报的言论版昨天刊登了这则新闻。话题有些敏感，但是非常现实的一个问题。

我已把两年半的青春贡献给新加坡。 下来十年，也会不断回营受训。希望有关部门会有妥善的安排， 给爱护新加坡的人一个交待。

Nov 20, 2006

NS stint may hinder job prospects for S’poreans

WHEN I started business in the motor trade a couple of years ago, I was surprised that many companies are reluctant to employ Singaporeans for several reasons. One of the main ones is that most male Singaporeans have to serve two to three weeks’ reservist training every year.

As a Singaporean, I understandably want to support my own people and give our men an opportunity. So my company went against the grain by employing one permanent resident and one Singaporean where most other companies go with PRs.

Both were equally hard working and resourceful. However, the Singaporean had in-camp training and when he failed his individual physical proficiency test (IPPT), he had to go for further training which meant that he had to leave work early. No such thing with PRs.

Although the Government reimburse the employee during reservist training, a company employs someone because of his contribution to its profitability. Does the Government take loss of business into consideration?

Small companies do not have the financial strength to bear the loss. Does this mean male Singaporeans can work only in large companies?

I wonder if the career Singapore Armed Forces officers who plan training programmes empathise with the difficulties male Singaporeans face in getting as well as retaining jobs – especially now with the greater influx of immigrants. Have they gone overboard with their planning? Do First World countries like Germany and Switzerland have similar durations in their national service and reservist training? Rather than two or three weeks’ reservist training, can it be reduced to one week or less?

To Singaporean employers, the inconvenience and loss of business due to the disruption tilt the scales to favour PRs instead of Singaporeans. The survivability of the company may force us to pick PRs the next time we look for an employee.

My son will do his NS at the end of the year. When he finishes his NS, will he face this problem when he looks for a job?

Sylvester Lim Teck Hee