Of listening to the people and the GST hike

Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, Young PAP vice-chairperson (Women's Wing) on "Countdown to the 2% GST hike, Ministerial and Civil Service Pay Increments".

I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.

------------

Hi EOC,

I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.

I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.

Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.

As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?

Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.


Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)

However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.