As per my observation.
Not forgetting that Australia's GST (VAT) is
discriminatory, they exempt certain basic necessities like food,
medication and textbooks.
Whereas Singapore adopts a non-discriminatory stance, tax
everything and anything. So that they can help the poor. 
The lame reasoning being, it's difficult to implement a
discriminatory GST. Other countries like the UK and Australia have
been doing it eons ago, they don't find it difficult, but Singapore
finds it difficult. We must lag some administrative efficiency.
Another lame reasoning, the rich also eats rice, by excluding it
would mean the rich escape being tax. But the cost to the rich is
pittance, whereas the cost to the poor is grave. e.g. Rich making
$50,000 per month, a 5kg bag of rice $13.00 and a GST of
$0.91. The GST of $0.91 only represents 0.001% of the rich folk's
income. Whereas to a person making $1,500, this would represent
0.061% of a poor person's income or 61 times that of a rich man's
income.
Another lame reasoning behind implementing GST for basic
necessities like food, these basic food products are used by
restaurants which rich folks go to. The GST payable by a restaurant
is the difference between it's input tax (what he incurred during
purchase) and output tax (what he charges to his customers).
Therefore, for a restaurant buying their raw
ingredients at $100, incurs a GST of $7 (input tax). The
restaurant sells their final food product at $1,000, the GST
charged to customer is $70 (output tax). The net amount payable to
IRAS would be $63 ($70 - $7). Not forgetting that the initial
amount of GST $7 was charged by another supplier to this
restaurant, so it is effectively in the pockets of the IRAS. The
total GST tax pocketed by IRAS is $70.
If basic food commodities was exempted GST, therefore the raw
ingredients purchased by the restaurant would be $100 (no GST, no
input tax). The final product that the restaurant charges is
$1,000, so the GST charged to customer is $70. Since there was no
input tax, then no deductions of input tax was made and the final
GST of $70 is paid to IRAS.
Whether IRAS charges GST for basic necessities or otherwise, the
net effect to IRAS would still be the same, in both circumstances
$70 of GST is collected by IRAS.
By not charging GST for basic foodstuff sold in supermarkets
would mean, that the poor would be better off by not having to
another 7%, thereby stretching the value of their dollar.
But their premise is, GST is to help the poor,
to what effect is left to the thinking abilities of the
audience.
Consider rich having cars, need to top up petrol with Gst, ERP
gantries, buy big expensive property with Gst, dine and
wine at posh restaurants charging service and Gst, shop at top
class boutiques with Gst, golf and game at clubs paying Gst.
Consider Poor or not so poor class, eat at kopi tiam, no car,
shop at local shop or Gst absorbed NTUC fairprice, watch movie,
jogging and play some ball game at local free court/parks.
The only time the rich and poor pay Gst together is on the Power
and water supply bills, phone bills, conservative bills and some
govt taxes. But the govt are giving rebate to HDB dwellers on
conservative and properties taxes, power supply rebates, Gst
rebates and bursary for low income group childrens.
In another words, Gst do tax the rich, unless the poor or not so
rich want to follow the rich style to buy cars, eat at top class
restaurant and shop at branded high class shop, then I have nothing
to compare with, and sad to say, many of our poors are lure by
materialism of the rich, these led to more poorer and less
saving.
