Choo Zheng Xi/Editor-in-Chief

With contribution from Darren Boon

You would be justifiably confused attempting to make sense of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) progress report on tax havens that emerged from the G20 summit. Has Singapore been “blacklisted” as The Daily Telegraph claims, or is the Straits Times right in saying we are on a “greylist”?

The good news for the Singaporean government is that The Daily Telegraph is wrong. The bad news is that while this report buys Singapore time, many uncomfortable questions about our status as a tax haven remain unanswered.

The “blacklist” explained

The nature of international diplomacy is probably to blame for the confusion.

Negotiations on a “blacklist” were contentious because of China’s sensitivity about Hong Kong and Macau appearing on it, as well as disagreements over the criteria for inclusion on the list.

The resulting document was entitled a “Progress Report”, which had three categorizations of countries’ compliance with OECD tax standards:

1) Jurisdictions that have substantially implemented these standards

2) Jurisdictions who have committed to these standards but have not yet implemented them (38 countries including Singapore)

3) Jurisdictions that have not committed to the standards (4 countries)

Richard Murphy, a columnist with The Guardian, notes that this compromise involved “several shades of grey”.

This would be an apt characterization of the category Singapore finds itself in. While it’s clear that the third category of countries is in most danger of triggering sanctions, Singapore has promised to meet the OECD standard for the effective exchange of information through Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs).

Now comes the bad news: this might not be enough to guarantee Singapore isn’t labeled a tax haven in the future. Signing of the Standards on DTAs are a red herring, and are unlikely to keep Singapore off the OECD blacklist for long unless accompanied by serious efforts to cooperate with international requests for information on money laundering.

Singapore banking secrecy

The crux of OECD irritation at Singapore is that our banking secrecy laws might have become an obstacle to other governments seeking to retrieve information on their tax evaders laundering money in our jurisdiction.

In an email response to TOC, Valerie Schilling, a spokeswoman for the Financial Action Task Force, noted Singapore did not seem to be implementing its anti-money laundering laws effectively in practice, in relation to foreign money laundering:

“Sufficient attention is not being paid to pursuing cases involving foreign predicate offences (i.e. criminal offences that are committed abroad) where the proceeds are being laundered in Singapore. Consequently, there appears to be a low number of prosecutions and convictions for money laundering, given the level of money laundering risk and the size of Singapore’s financial sector”.

This seems to be corroborated by an article by UK think tank Research Republic and published by City of London, which highlights how banking secrecy laws might hinder foreign countries’ pursuit of tax evaders:

“One of the main strengths enjoyed by Singapore is its banking secrecy laws, which are now widely regarded as being stricter even than those of Switzerland…Evasion of taxes is illegal in Singapore, but authorities are unwilling to cooperate with other countries and provide information about tax evaders unless there is some evasion of Singaporean taxes involved.”

The Ministry of Finance’s press statement suggests that this culture of secrecy will be maintained as far as it will allow us to comply with OECD standards on DTAs: “Singapore will implement the Standard through our DTAs to assist on bona-fide requests for information rather than information fishing”.

What is a DTA and is it enough?

But is signing up to standards on the DTA enough to stave off eventual labeling as a tax haven? MOF seems to be implying that it is, by touting the signing of DTAs.

This is probably misleading.

A DTA is an agreement between two states to prevent income or profits from international economic activity between their countries being taxed twice. Except for a single article, Article 26, it says nothing of the exchange of information between contracting States.

This is a far cry from OECD disclosure standards in a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA), whose entire purpose is to facilitate “information exchange to prevent harmful tax competition between countries”. (OECD Model TIEA)

A TIEA, unlike the DTA, specifies in much greater detail rules and procedures on information exchange between States.

Understandably, the OECD is more interested in countries signing TIEAs. TIEAs are the international legal tool with which countries can request information from its partner TIEA signatory to disclose information on suspected money launderers. A minimum of 12 TIEAs seems to be the threshold of compliance with OECD standards*.

Singapore laws on banking secrecy need to rethought so that a balance can be struck with our desire to cooperate with the international community’s attempts to apprehend money launderers. MOF’s less than subtle attempt to divert the international community’s attention from TIEAs by highlighting its compliance with the apparently less onerous DTAs is unfortunate.

Unless such antics stop, we should not be surprised if we are eventually labeled a tax haven.

*TOC Note:

The reference for the requisite number of TIEAs to trigger compliance with OECD standards was cited in a Daily Telegraph article as well as a speech by the Bermudan Minister of Finance in the Parliament of Bermuda. TOC was unable to find independent corroboration of this requirement on the OECD website, and will be writing to the OECD for this verification.

Read also: G20 Summit – blacklisted tax havens face sanctions by The Telegraph.

The OECD tax havens’ listing of countries.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Progress Singapore Party's inaugural PSP Talk: Poverty in Singapore and policy gaps in the social safety net

On 10 September, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) held its inaugural PSP…

Nearly 400 Scoot crew deployed to support other industries, over 100 crew take up temporary job at ams Sensors Singapore

Low-cost airline Scoot had deployed nearly 400 crew to support other industries,…

Iraqi reporter seriously wounded day after activist’s killing sparks protests

An Iraqi journalist was in intensive care after being shot in the…

选举当天状况百出 选举官员社媒诉苦选举局朝令夕改

虽然大选已落幕,但针对当天投票的情况一直被人诟病,如排长龙、居家通知的选民遭遗漏等等,最让人印象深刻的相信就是大选当天临时延长投票至晚间10点。如今也有网友在社交媒体上爆料有关当天的情况,为许多出乎意料的情况作出解答。 社交媒体Reddit上周六(11日)有网友u/hosehliao分享自己在当选举官员(Election official)的经验。 网友Hosehliao在长帖文中先解释选举官员的职责,选举官员并非是志愿者,是被分配,而且任何被指派为选举官员的人只有怀孕或请病假时才能退出。 “首先,没有谁是志愿者,我们只是被分配。只有当你怀孕或请病假才能被允许(无论是真还是假),我们会获得250至300元的报酬,听起来很棒吧,但工作时间真的很糟糕。 网友Hosehliao补充,在投票日前,他们也必须参加训练,并被告知将在投票日前一天必须花四个小时布置投票站。然而,投票日当天,网友说一般都是从早上6点半开始,但部分投票站必须在凌晨4点45分抵达,而且一同站台到晚间10点。 投票是保密的 针对选票是否能够保密,网友Hosehliao也作出回应,他澄清,尽管选票上有序列号吗,但在不知道的情况下,其实难以追踪每位选民的选票。 人民行动党在投票站监票?网友:必须待在特定的地方 至于当天谣传人民行动党派人驻守在投票站前,网友Hosehliao也解释,每个竞选政党都允许派人见证投票的过程,但他们是必须待在特定的地方,确保无法看见选民投票,或认不出所有进去的人。 “人民行动党确实有人在见证投票过程,但可能在野党并没有派人驻守所有的投票站。即便如此,他们还是必须待在特定的地点,他们看不见你投了什么,也认不出所有进去的人。” 其中最引发争议的是投票时间延长两小时和传出选举官员并未获得全套个人防护装备(PPE),对此,网友Hosehliao表示,当时情况相当混乱,就连他们的长官也无法确定。…