Proclamation of 1763 by Maria Cortes

“Nothing is certain except death and taxes” sagely spoke the great economist JM Keynes. Here, nothing is certain except a government hellbent on both collecting taxes and protecting the privileges of the rich.

I am talking of the go-ahead for on-line gambling, which was at the end of the day a fait accompli. The name of the game is fiscal sustainability or rather the threat to the figleaf of a low tax business friendly regime.

Ageing population require greater social spending, for example healthcare spending projected to rise to $12 Billion by 2020. Yet the government refused to do any of the most obvious options:

  1. Increase taxes on the rich,
  2. Re-allocate spending priorities e.g. from defense and heaven forbid exorbitant ministers and senior civil servant salaries,
  3. Adjust the constitutional spending rule to increase the amount of funds available from the reserves, after inflation adjustment.

No, the government refused to do any of those because the first two…. well they won’t want to encroach on the privileges of the rich when they themselves are rich and who wants to vote for a reduction in their own salaries, right?

The third has long ago become an end rather then a means to an end – hence it (the reserves) has taken a life of its own. Besides it is always useful kept in the back pocket in case more vote buying oops targeted spending is required.

What is left but to increase stuff like GST and taxes on vice? Hence on-line gambling comes handy.

It won’t be enough so in time to come other vice taxes perhaps like legalised prostitution. So don’t be surprised if a certain area in Singapore becomes a must-go for ogling at and engaging the services of scantily clad women and not quite women plying their trade behind large windows just like Amsterdam.

It might become a famous tourist spot also just like Amsterdam. While at it add in the “brown cafes” serving legalised pot, it’s supposed to be medicinal these days.

Make no mistake though ………. this government is running short of revenues. Its low tax, business friendly regime is predicated on fast economic growth (guess why the influx of foreign workers) and will come under pressure with the new normal of no more than two to three percent a year.

This article was first published on Chris Kuan’s Facebook.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Bringing a little bit of reality to debate on the death penalty

NOTE: The writer is a founding member of We Believe in Second…

SMRT breakdowns causes mayhem to commuters

~ By Aberdyn ~ It appears that Singapore’s public transport services are becoming…

上诉庭暂缓处决马国死囚 尚穆根:宽限马国毒贩不可行

昨日(23日)上诉庭批准,暂缓对涉及毒品案的马来西亚籍死囚潘尼尔执行死刑。他获准在两周内针对被总统哈莉玛驳回特赦的申请提出上诉。 现年32岁的潘尼尔于2014年9月3日,在新加坡兀兰关卡被发现走私51.84克的海落英,后于2017年6月27日被判运毒罪名成立须面对死刑。潘尼尔日前上诉寻求新加坡总统哈莉玛的特赦,惟遭驳回。 上诉庭三司聆听潘尼尔的上诉申请后,批准其暂缓死刑,宣判指出潘尼尔在至少一周前被告知处决时间,并在同一时间向总统提出特赦申请而遭拒。 梅达顺说道,这两者时间间距过短,并不足以提供囚犯足够时间去寻求司法建议以回应特赦申请遭驳。 他续指,潘尼尔新加坡辩护律师团昨日才刚接获指示,不能指望他们要在短时间内呈上完整的论证。 梅达顺也指出,“如此看来,赦免申请时间被压缩而对此提出质疑。我们一致认为,无论是否成功豁免,申请人理应由充分的时间得到法律咨询。 时间顺序果断,申请过程缺乏透明度 在聆听上诉之际,辩护律师向法庭提出质疑有关潘尼尔的赦免申请,认为赦免申请过程缺乏透明度。 法院据潘尼尔家人所言,在本月17日收到两封信件—新加坡总统府拒绝赦免申请的信件,与新加坡监狱署的通知处决书。 潘尼尔在书面陈述中表示,从快递收据显示,两封书面资料均在本月16日寄出。 他以时间顺序问题指控潘尼尔在赦免过程,被剥夺了公平公正的机会。 对此,检察官代表也针对总统府、总检察署寄出书面资料给囚犯的时间顺序作出回应。…


根据卫生部文告,截至5月17日中午12时,本地新增682例冠状病毒19确诊。 如今本地累计确诊病例已增至2万8038例。 新增确诊病例大多为住宿舍的工作准证持有者。有四名新加坡公民或永久居民确诊。 当局仍在搜集新增确诊者详情并将在晚些时候公布。