Jamus Lim's inconsistent position on protecting the environment

Back in Oct 2020, Jamus Lim suggested in Parliament an environmental tax on SIA because the environment must 'not be a casualty to business considerations'.

At that time SIA (and indeed many businesses) was on life support.

Fast forward one year later, conditions have improved. Businesses are no longer on life support.

BUT business considerations now take precedence over the needs of the environment, as Jamus calls for a flexible carbon tax that depends on economic conditions.

Leaders need to be consistent and make sense

Tourists and foreigners living in Singapore contribute to 50% of net GST revenue

Come, let us reason together.

50% of NET GST collected (after tourist refunds) is from tourists and foreigners living here. Another 20% is paid by the top 20% of households. (Data provided in Parliament).

This means 𝟑𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 including people earning sufficiently good income.

Someone asked in Parliament if it is worth collecting 50% of the NET GST from tourists and foreigners living here because Singaporeans earning 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 are also affected by inflation.

The question that should be asked is: is it smart to give up more than $3 billion (after hike) you can collect from tourists and foreigners yearly, and lay it all on Singaporeans when you don't have to?

Inflation affects everyone.

If you are earning a sufficiently good income of $10k or $16k, you should be able to bear it with some adjustments and not expect to be totally shielded from it.

The rich are already being taxed more. In fact, the top 20% households, together with tourists and foreigners, account for around $4 billion of NET GST in 2019.

As you can see from data, GST is mainly borne by tourists, foreigners and top income earners.

WP and Jamus Lim's mixed messages on carbon tax and protecting the environment

Cover all ground. Please everyone. Chase every vote.

WP's mixed messages is meant to win everyone, never mind if these messages become incoherent when put together.

There is one message to please all who are concerned with climate change and another to please those for whom the present is more important than the future.

What is more disturbing is that the economist in WP, Jamus Lim, demonstrated that he didn't quite fully understand when he equated his suggestion of a flexible carbon tax to an uncertain interest rate.

“'I'm befuddled because even now, the Government routinely alters levers or policies, such as the interest rate when there is uncertainty on a year-to-year basis about the level of interest rate. Yet, businesses continue to invest,” he said.

This is not about the COST of doing business as interest rates go up or down. This is about the TRANSFORMATION of a business.

The carbon tax trajectory is critical in enabling the pace of transformation to a low-carbon future.

It provides certainty and impetus for businesses to plan their transition, to invest in low-carbon technologies and carbon markets.

It ensures that NEW investments and economic activities are aligned with a low-carbon future.

I'm very proud that a small country like Singapore that imports our energy needs is making effort to achieve zero emission. Kudos to the PAP Government for staying the course despite the difficult time we are in.

WP's very successful political game in AHTC

WP's very successful political game.

In the beginning, Singaporeans did not know that FMSS was owned by close affiliates of WP.

Only WP and MND knew these facts.

But MND left them alone because, as then National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said, they allowed some latitude with regard to party affiliation because TCs are political by nature. So MND did not interfere with the award of contracts to FMSS.

Then one day, the WP decided to play politics in Parliament during the debate on AIM.

They wanted to whip up a furore over AIM being a company set up by PAP members.

Not knowing that MND knew the fact of FMSS being owned by close affiliates of WP, Pritam Singh boldly declared in Parliament that transactions with political party-owned companies should be banned by the TC Act.

That's when Mr Khaw Boon Wan rebutted the WP and told them to look in the mirror.

And so folks, that was how the whole of Singapore came to know that FMSS was owned by close party affiliates who acted as assenter and proposer to the WP's Ang Mo Kio GRC team in the 2006 General Election.

There's nothing wrong with WP appointing FMSS as their managing agent. This was why MND left them alone in the first place and did not interfere.

This is also why we are not surprised by the Court of Appeal saying that WP appointed FMSS in 'good faith'.

So WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

The issue was that they allowed their friends to set up a flawed payment system involving conflict of interest, and then being fully aware of this conflict of interest, did nothing to correct it and allowed it to persist until MND decided to step in and put things right.

And THAT is the issue today.

The issue is not that they appointed friends (in good faith).

They issue is that they allowed their friends to set up a flawed payment process (in bad faith).

The Court of Appeal found them to be woefully negligent, and acting in bad faith, and allowing this to persist for 3 years before MND stepped in and put an end to this payment process

Jamus Lim's inconsistency. Does he want to protect the environment?

He used a different textbook this time?

Back when flights grounded to a stop, he suggested an environmental tax on SIA. Climate change was an existential issue and we must think of future generations, so he said.

After 2 years in WP, now he wants carbon pricing adjusted up and down according to economic conditions. No more existential issue. No more 'not just when it suits us'. No more thinking of future generations.

LOL

What if recession hit next year? What if another crisis follows?

In the words of the Court of Appeal: WP's MPs acted in bad faith

 

This is why treating land sale proceeds as revenue for government expenditure is a bad idea

 

Every policy proposal will have an impact on our lives.

What's the impact of treating land sale proceeds directly as revenue for government spending?

We can look at the example in Hong Kong where land sale proceeds are revenue for the government to spend. Hong Kong has the most expensive property market in the world with a lease of 50 years, half of Singapore's 99 years. Many Hong Kongers will outlive the lease of their flat.

If you are already complaining about the affordability of HDB flats, you will be hurt even more if a government decides to treat land sale proceeds as revenue for spending.

Such a policy prioritises land sales for fiscal needs instead of actual developmental needs, as is the case in Hong Kong.

It also subjects government revenue to the boom and bustsnof the property market. In a downturn, government revenue goes down at a time when it needs more money to spend. And that's bad for citizens.