by Azim Azman
inSing.com - 20 February 2013 3:59 PM | Updated 9:14
PM
Foreigners and Permanent Residents (PR) who inSing interviewed
would feel ‘punished’ for being in Singapore if a proposed income
and property tax, exclusive to them, ever comes into effect.
In a note posted on his Facebook (FB) page, Member of Parliament
(MP) Hri Kumar wrote that he intends to propose the tax in the
upcoming Budget debates next week.
Called the National Defence Duty Tax, its purpose is to “address
a current imbalance which currently exists” of Singaporeans who
sacrifice a “significant economic cost” by doing two years of
National Service (NS), versus foreigners and PRs who do not.
His argument is since non-Singaporeans benefit from the security
which a strong armed forces provides, they should pay a duty, “a
financial contribution to the protection and preservation of their
(Singaporean) lives, families, jobs, investments and
properties.”
MP Kumar’s FB post on 13 February has sparked heated debate
online with FB users posting 169 comments and his note being shared
145 times.
SCEPTICISM OVER TAX
Many foreigners and PRs who inSing interviewed expressed
scepticism over the intent of the tax.
Advertising strategist Felix Pels says that the tax is trying to
deflect attention away from the “current unrest” over the
government’s recently released Population White Paper which states
that Singapore could have 6.9 million people by 2030.
“(It is) attempting to 'punish' non-citizens…adding a tax does
nothing to address the legitimate questions around where
Singapore's population is heading and how the government intends to
grow it,” said the 30-year-old Australian, who has been working in
Singapore for the past one year.
He adds that Hri Kumar’s suggestion – that the objective of the
tax to “create sharper distinctions between Singaporeans and others
who live or do business here” – will send the wrong message to
those considering a move to Singapore.
“If anything, this tax will only increase the issues (between
Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans) that are causing concern today,”
said Pels.
Marcelino Jr, who works as a senior manager with the Singapore
Sports Council, agrees that the tax goes against current government
efforts to integrate new citizens and will drive a wedge between
local Singaporeans and foreigners.
He also criticises one of Hri Kumar’s points that low wage Indian workers
be left out of the tax equation, as being unfair.
“If the tax is meant to offset the per-unit cost of security to
each person in Singapore, then it has to be fair across the board –
to all who do not contribute to NS. That means everyone foreign
including foreign domestic workers. It shouldn't matter whether
(they are) skilled, unskilled or professional,” the 43-year-old
Filipino said.
A 32-year-old French national, who only wanted to be known as
“Jennifer”, has been living in Singapore for the past nine years.
She agrees that MP Kumar “should find better reasons if he wants to
increase our taxes – these (current reasons put forward) are just
not convincing at all.”
LOW TAXES IN SINGAPORE
However she, like many foreigners and PRs interviewed, admit
that the current taxes they have to pay in Singapore are low.
“I come from a country where taxes are way higher than in
Singapore so I do not consider myself as heavily taxed,” she
said.
This is not the case for Ted Fordney who works as a vice
president for Neptune Orient Lines. The 56-year-old says that this
additional tax will add to the already high taxation United States
(US) citizens have to pay.
“As a US citizen, I pay US and Singapore taxes. The tax
equalisation terms I was given are such that my company subsidises
the difference so that I do not have to endure double taxation.
However, this additional tax might push my employer to discontinue
their expatriate program, or their tax coverage,” said Fordney, who
spent eight years in Singapore before heading back to the United
States in 2010.
A Canadian marketing executive, who only gave his name as
“Kelvin”, has a different perspective on the situation.
He says that, having lived in four different countries, away
from his home country of Canada, citizens have every right to
expect priority over non-citizens in all matters of policy
planning.
“The decisions on how that country is run should be made by its
citizens and we (foreigners) are guests here,” he said, adding that
he has lived in Singapore for 13 years.
Former nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong wrote in his
blog on 15 February that the tax only approaches
the cost and burden of NS in economic and not real world terms.
“If we want to make up for the cost and burden of defending the
country, we should give those who have served NS even more benefits
than they receive today. More, much more than the tax relief and
the SAFRA (Singapore Armed Forces Reservists Association)
membership,” he wrote.
CLARIFICATIONS AND RESPONSES
The online debate over the proposed tax has prompted Hri Kumar
to make clarifications and responses to individual FB users on his
Facebook page.
In his latest post put up on Saturday, he reiterates his stance
that there is a need to ensure that non-Singaporeans who come here
to work do not see Singapore as a purely economic opportunity and
that they integrate with the rest of Singapore society.
He firmly believes that NS is the biggest differentiation
between citizens and non-citizens and that his proposed tax is the
perfect way to address the imbalance.
He wrote this in response to Facebook users who expressed
reservations that the time spent for National Service can be “paid
off” with a tax.
