Inderjit Singh predicts cost of living, impact of GST hike, and housing affordability may influence voting patterns
SINGAPORE: Former People's Action Party (PAP) MP Inderjit Singh has suggested that the cost of living squeeze, the impact of the goods and services tax (GST) hike, and the affordability and accessibility of housing are among the issues that are top of mind for Singaporeans and may influence voting patterns when the nation goes to the polls on Saturday (May 3).
Mr Singh is a former ruling party parliamentarian who served at Ang Mo Kio GRC for nearly two decades, between 1996 and 2015. He retired from active politics prior to the 2015 General Election (GE) but served as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's election agent, that year.
Taking to Facebook on Tuesday (April 29), Mr Singh weighed in on the election campaign thus far and highlighted key issues that he believes are shaping voter sentiment. Noting that the campaign had reached its halfway mark and, with 'many things said and many emotions shared,' he sought to distil what he believes are the most pressing issues influencing the electorate.
Foremost among these is the cost of living, which the former politician described as a 'wage growth vs. cost of living' dilemma. He raised the question as to whether the government had done enough to manage the widening gap between rising prices and stagnant incomes. He also pointed to the debate between offering short-term financial handouts and adopting long-term structural solutions.
Mr Singh also raised the timing and impact of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, asking if it might have worsened inflation and whether the decision was appropriately judged. He asked whether delaying the hike could have alleviated inflationary pressures, noting public unease over the two-step increase from 7 per cent to 9 per cent.
The former Ang Mo Kio GRC MP questioned whether the decision to stagger the rise had 'turbocharged' inflation and probed the necessity of the tax increase, asking if alternative revenue sources were explored before raising taxes.
He also raised concerns on the ground about both affordability and accessibility in housing, and whether current policies have sufficiently managed public expectations and demand.
Highlighting the influence of foreign buyers on property prices, he asked whether more could have been done earlier to shield local buyers from external market pressures. The government's effectiveness in balancing housing supply and demand was also brought into question.
Mr Singh said that the aborted sale of NTUC Income Insurance to German conglomerate Allianz could also be a controversial issue that matters to voters.
Reflecting concerns over whether the labour movement had adequately protected Singaporeans' interests, he indicated Singaporeans are seeking more accountability and transparency and asking whether the right decisions were made at the top.
Separating politics from religion or foreign interference is another issue that Mr Singh foresees may matter to voters. He flagged the potential influence of foreign actors in local politics as well as concerns that some parties' engagement with religious leaders could risk compromising Singapore's secular values and potentially sow division in Singapore's diverse, multi-religious society.
The retired politician added that an issue that voters might be looking at could be how the ruling party responds to the potential consequences of losing experienced ministers in Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). He indicated voters could be weighing whether a significant loss of ministers could affect policy continuity and stability or whether having more opposition voices to provide alternative ideas would be more beneficial.
Mr Singh's list of concerns comes at a critical juncture as parties make their final appeals to voters ahead of what is expected to be a closely watched election.
This is not the first time Mr Singh has discussed these issues during this campaign period. Speaking with the Yah Lah But podcast earlier this month, he had said:
'I think for the PAP in these elections, it is not just going to be 'trust me I'm going to be able to solve the housing problem and cost of living problem.' That's not going to work anymore.'
He added that he feels it is 'good to have opposition in parliament coming up with ideas' but added that he felt he was 'more opposition than the opposition' when he was in Parliament at the same time as JB Jeyaretnam and Chiam See Tong.
Mr Singh stood out among his colleagues when he was in Parliament. In 2013, he excused himself from the chamber when Parliament voted for the unpopular 6.9 million population white paper. He would have had to vote 'yes' together with the other PAP MPs if he was in the chamber, as the party whip wasn't removed.
Shortly thereafter, the veteran politician publicly advocated that the party whip should be removed when Parliament votes on major policies. He was still a PAP MP when he made this call.
Since his retirement from politics, many Singaporeans have praised Mr Singh for his outspoken and critical views on a number of issues and his bravery in speaking out against the authorities when he feels conflicted about an issue.
The next two days will be the final days for campaigning before the Cooling Off Day blanket falls on May 2, preceding the election on May 3.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
12 hours ago
- Straits Times
Hear Me Out: Has the swing against elitism gone too far?
An art installation at the Padang. Vocal naysayers recently accused the Government's SG Culture Pass initiative of being the very thing it counteracted: elitism. PHOTO: ST FILE Hear Me Out: Has the swing against elitism gone too far? SINGAPORE – At a time when most people understand that the personal is political, individual views have become a battleground of virtue – equality, good; hierarchy, bad. Elitism? The worst possible kind of social evil. Yet, take a step back from this instinctive repulsion and there might be benefits to muddying the waters. Elitism, the belief that an elite group, however defined, should be entitled to the reins of power has been the norm throughout much of history. Whether it is the clergy, kings with their divine right, the Confucian scholar or today's fintech bros, there have been groups in each time period that societies tend to value and reward. It was only with increasing democratisation, and a growing disenfranchisement at the chasm between the top and the rest, that elitism has become a byword for undeserved privilege and gross injustice. This brief trip back in time is not to rehabilitate elitism, but to show that the current period against it – or at least one that pays lip service to not believing in an elite class – may be an aberrant one. In the West, this has been taken to extremes, manifesting in a debilitating disregard fo r e xperts and fatal results during the Covid-19 pandemic against the advice of doctors to vaccinate. In Singapore, it is the elite schools that are targeted, in the idealistic slogan that every school is a good school. Though, for perplexing reasons, this scepticism has not yet been extended to the natural reverence the majority of Singaporeans harbour for lawyers and doctors. Their expertise is assumed to be universally applicable – a mentality that has narrowed parents and students' conception of what success looks like. In any case, the ills of elitism have been thoroughly aired, including the type of entitled, discompassionate divas that it ends up producing. The very consensus of who deserves to be elite has also fractured. I wonder, though, if this enmity has led to some unexpected side effects. This is a train of thought sparked by recent reactions to the Government's SG Culture Pass initiative set out during the Budget statement in 2025. Self-sabotage Under the scheme, $100 would be given t o Si ngaporeans aged 18 and above for the consumption of the local arts, redeemable from September. One would expect rejoicing, but there was uproar from a group of vocal naysayers. They accused the credits of being the very thing it counteracted: elitism. Why? Because the money could be better spent on support for groceries. This, I thought, was a case of anti-elitism as self-sabotage. Central to this worldview was that the arts is an elitist activity patronised only by the rich and the hyper-educated aesthete, when one type of activity for the elite and one for the others is exactly the sort of segregation and self-limiting mentality that perpetuates divides. There was no sense that this $100 in credits was a way of making the perceived barrier more permeable. To put it in context, the Government also announced $800 in CDC vouchers. This was bread for all, and roses too. Yet another potentially problematic by-product is that the word 'elite' has since been tainted by association. No one dares lay claim to the word 'elite', or acknowledge that someone else may be elite in his or her field. The rare exemption is perhaps in sports, where athletes accept the cut-throat nature of their competition, and where non-athletes are so tangibly outside their league that there is no point in pretending otherwise. This is not in itself a problem – elite is after all just a word – though I find no easy replacement term that can immediately convey excellence to the same degree. But it incidentally comes at a time when there is a general reluctance to impose any kind of objective standard, supplemented by that compassionate but useless invention: the consolation prize. This applies to things: Is no one taste now better than another? As well as people, where so many takes on social media are considered equally valid, measured just by virality. It is the kind of ChatGPT mentality where how often something is repeated or the number of clicks on a website can influence results, with no regard to its truth value. The war against elitism may have come at the expense of standards and good sense. Reclaiming elite This impulse to drag discourse to the same level – usually downwards – has the right intentions, timely given that, for so long, highly selective elitist standards have been imposed as objective metrics. To right the ship so discourse is levelled upwards though, perhaps elite can be thought of as separate from elitism, rehabilitated without the corresponding concentration of resources and power. This should be expanded so that who is elite becomes not just about education but also because of other qualities – role models people can aspire to in different contexts. What constitutes an elite has always been reliant on man-made barometers, negotiated by the community. There should be no shame in aspiring to be elite. Anti-elitism should not mean an absence of the elite, but that all who put their heart and minds to it should have a fair shot at claiming its pedigree, or getting closer to it. It is a lifelong dusting off of mediocrity, and it begins with first recognising what is good. Hear Me Out is a new series where young journalists (over)share on topics ranging from navigating friendships to self-loathing, and the occasional intrusive thought. Check out the Headstart chatbot for answers to your questions on careers and work trends.
Straits Times
13 hours ago
- Straits Times
S'pore embassy in Washington seeking US clarification on Harvard's visa ban
SINGAPORE - Singapore's embassy in Washington has been seeking clarification from the US State Department and Department of Homeland Security on President Donald Trump's directive prohibiting foreigners from entering the country to study at Harvard University. The embassy is hoping for clarity from US authorities in the next few days, including on whether there will be any delay in the processing of visas for Singaporeans hoping to study in the US, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said on June 7. In a zoom call with Singapore media to wrap up his five-day visit to Washington, he noted that many current and prospective students looking to study in the United States had expressed their concern to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over potential visa delays. Asked to elaborate on contingencies being planned should Singaporean students find themselves unable to proceeds with their plans to study in the US, he said the Government is trying to find solutions to deal with the worst case scenario where students are not able to physically study in Boston. 'We've got some ideas for how we can help them to, in a sense, deal with that eventuality without impairing their academic and professional progress,' said Dr Balakrishnan. 'For others who are not yet here, who have not yet secured visas, you may also need to have backup plans, but my main point is we will stay in touch, and we will continue to keep you informed.' Dr Balakrishnan noted that Singapore's ambassador to the US Lui Tuck Yew has also held a virtual town hall with students currently studying in Harvard. In the virtual town hall on May 30, Mr Lui told Singaporean students at Harvard that the Republic's autonomous universities can offer them placements if they wish to discontinue their studies in the US and return home. A Ministry of Education spokesperson said this message was shared with affected students so they could consider returning to Singapore as a possible option to continue their studies. There are six autonomous universities here: National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore University of Technology and Design and Singapore Institute of Technology. University statistics show that there are currently 151 Singaporean students in Harvard. Among them are 12 Public Service Commission scholarship holders. Foreign students at Harvard were thrown into limbo after Mr Trump's administration announced on May 22 that it had revoked Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Programme certification with immediate effect. The nearly 6,800 international students in the Ivy League college were given an ultimatum to either transfer to another institution, or face deportation. A federal judge later blocked the move, with the Trump administration rolling back its stance on May 29 and giving Harvard 30 days to submit evidence contesting the administration's plan to revoke the school's right to enrol international students. International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard's student body, but Mr Trump said the university should cap its international intake at 15 per cent. Dr Balakrishnan said the situation confronting international students stems from domestic political issues within the US. But students, including from Singapore, can become affected as collateral damage, and there will be a period of uncertainty of at least a few days or weeks. 'Nevertheless, we will continue to pursue this with the American authorities, and I hope we'll be able to find suitable solutions for our students who want to pursue educational opportunities in the United States.' At a macro level, it remains in both Singapore and the US' interests to keep opportunities open for Singaporeans who want to study and work in the US to expand their domain experience and their networks, he added. 'So this is an issue that we will continue to pursue with the State Department.' Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
AsiaOne
15 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Dismay and disbelief as Trump bans visitors from a dozen countries, World News
Officials and residents in countries whose citizens will soon be banned from visiting the United States expressed dismay and disbelief on Thursday (June 5) at President Donald Trump's new sweeping travel ban as his administration intensifies its immigration crackdown. Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday barring citizens of 12 countries from entering the US starting on Monday, asserting that the restrictions were necessary to protect against "foreign terrorists." The order was reminiscent of a similar move Trump implemented during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021, when he barred travellers from seven Muslim-majority nations. That directive faced court challenges and went through several iterations before the US Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2018. Former President Joe Biden, a Democrat who succeeded Trump, repealed that ban in 2021, calling it "a stain on our national conscience." But the new ban is much more expansive and covers Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Citizens of seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - will be partially restricted. A senior diplomat with the Sudanese Foreign Ministry, who asked not to be named, said Trump's justification did not stand up to scrutiny. "Sudanese people have never been known to pose a terrorist threat anywhere in the world," the official said. Chad President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno said he had instructed his government to stop granting visas to US citizens in response to Trump's action. "Chad has neither planes to offer nor billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and its pride," he said in a Facebook post, referring to countries such as Qatar, which gifted the US a luxury airplane for Trump's use and promised to invest billions of dollars in the US Afghans who worked for the US or US-funded projects and were hoping to resettle in the US expressed fear that the travel ban would force them to return to their country, where they could face reprisal from the Taliban. Fatima, a 57-year-old Afghan women's rights defender waiting in Pakistan for her US visa to be processed, had her dreams shattered overnight after Trump's order. "Unfortunately, the decisions made by President Trump turned all the hopes and beliefs of us into ashes," she told Reuters, asking that only her first name be published for security reasons. Ban to take effect Monday Trump said the countries subject to the most severe restrictions were determined to harbour a "large-scale presence of terrorists," fail to co-operate on visa security, have an inability to verify travellers' identities, as well as inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories and high rates of visa overstays in the United States. He cited Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national tossed a gasoline bomb into a crowd of pro-Israel demonstrators as an example of why the new curbs are needed. But Egypt was not part of the travel ban. "Because Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. When asked why he chose this moment to unveil the ban, he said: "It can't come soon enough." The visa ban takes effect on June 9 at 12.01am. Visas issued before that date will not be revoked, the order said. In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The ban is likely to face legal challenges. But Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, said he expected those lawsuits to face an uphill climb, because the latest ban contains various exemptions and cited specific security concerns with each country. The ban includes exemptions, such as for dual nationals, permanent residents, immigrant visas for immediate family members of US citizens and athletes travelling for major sporting events like the World Cup. "Trump has learned from the mistakes of earlier travel bans," he said. Some foreign officials said they were prepared to work with the US to address Trump's security concerns. "Somalia values its longstanding relationship with the United States and stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised," Dahir Hassan Abdi, the Somali ambassador to the United States, said in a statement. [[nid:718800]]
