![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
28-04-2025, 04:39 PM
Bullshit in GE2025: GST hike was implemented with ‘great care’, opposition ignored facts to maximise votes, says PM Wong | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...mise-votes
### Potential "Bullshit" Claims and Why They’re Problematic
Here are the identified claims or implications from the article that could be considered misleading, exaggerated, or questionable, along with explanations of why they might be problematic:
1. **Claim: The GST hike was implemented with ‘great care’**
- **Why it’s questionable**: The phrase "great care" is vague and subjective, implying meticulous planning and minimal negative impact without providing concrete evidence of what "care" entailed beyond general references to vouchers and rebates. While the government introduced measures like the Assurance Package and GST Voucher scheme, the article doesn’t detail how these fully offset the regressive nature of GST, which disproportionately affects lower-income households who spend a larger share of their income on consumption. Critics, including opposition MPs, have argued that the timing of the hike—during a period of global inflation—exacerbated cost-of-living pressures, suggesting the "care" may not have been as effective as claimed.
- **Evidence of issue**: Public sentiment, as reflected in online forums like HardwareZone, shows skepticism about the "care" claim, with users arguing that the hike still increased living costs for the poor and middle class, despite vouchers. For example, a user notes, "the increase will impact [the poor and middle class] much more than the rich," highlighting that the proportional burden is heavier for lower-income groups. Additionally, inflation data shows consumer price index (CPI) inflation at 6.1% in 2022, 4.8% in 2023, and 2.4% in 2024, indicating persistent price pressures during the GST hike period, which could undermine the "great care" narrative.[](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...t-increase)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim overstates the effectiveness of mitigation measures without acknowledging the real financial strain felt by many Singaporeans, as evidenced by public discontent and the opposition’s focus on cost-of-living concerns. It’s a rhetorical flourish that glosses over trade-offs and assumes universal acceptance of the policy’s execution.
2. **Claim: Opposition ignored facts to maximise votes**
- **Why it’s questionable**: This statement accuses opposition parties (e.g., Workers’ Party and Progress Singapore Party) of deliberately misrepresenting the GST hike’s impact for political gain, implying their critiques lack substance. However, opposition leaders like Pritam Singh and Leong Mun Wai have raised specific concerns—e.g., Singh’s claim that the GST hike "turbocharged" inflation and Leong’s argument that it disproportionately burdens the middle class. These are debatable points, but they engage with economic realities like inflation and income distribution, not just populist rhetoric. PM Wong’s dismissal risks oversimplifying legitimate policy disagreements as mere vote-chasing.
- **Evidence of issue**: The opposition’s arguments are grounded in data and public sentiment. Singh’s "turbocharged" claim, while hyperbolic, aligns with concerns about inflation peaking at 6.1% in 2022 before the GST hike, with additional price pressures in 2023–2024. Leong’s calculations, though disputed by Wong, suggest middle-income households bear a significant GST burden, which aligns with economic theory on consumption taxes. Public frustration, as seen in forum posts, supports the opposition’s focus on cost-of-living issues, indicating they’re reflecting real concerns, not just exploiting them.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...g.7123327/)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim paints the opposition’s critiques as entirely fact-free and politically motivated, ignoring their basis in economic data and public experience. It’s a rhetorical tactic to discredit dissent without engaging substantively with the arguments, which undermines fair debate.
3. **Claim: Lower- and middle-income residents pay less than 9% GST due to vouchers and rebates**
- **Why it’s questionable**: PM Wong asserts that permanent GST vouchers and rebates reduce the effective GST rate for lower- and middle-income households below the headline 9%, with some paying no GST at all. While the GST Voucher scheme and Assurance Package provide offsets, the claim oversimplifies the reality. Vouchers and rebates are finite and may not cover all consumption, especially for households with ongoing expenses. GST is applied at point-of-sale, meaning all consumers initially pay 9%, and offsets come later, which can strain cash flow for low-income families. Additionally, the effectiveness of these offsets depends on household size, spending patterns, and voucher usage, which the article doesn’t address.
- **Evidence of issue**: Forum users on HardwareZone challenge this claim, with one sarcastically noting, “Please dun tell me that it is through all the rebates and vouchers,” indicating public doubt about the offsets’ sufficiency. Economic analysis suggests consumption taxes like GST are regressive because lower-income households spend a higher proportion of their income on taxed goods. Wong himself acknowledges that middle-income households’ GST share decreases only slightly (from 19.2% to 18.6%), suggesting limited relief. If vouchers don’t fully match increased costs due to inflation or GST, the effective rate may still feel closer to 9% for many.[](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...rence-wong)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim exaggerates the relief provided by vouchers, implying a seamless reduction in GST burden that doesn’t fully align with the lived experience of many Singaporeans. It overlooks the regressive nature of GST and the practical limitations of offset mechanisms, presenting an overly rosy picture.
4. **Claim: The GST hike primarily affects foreigners, tourists, and high-income households**
- **Why it’s questionable**: PM Wong suggests that the 9% GST rate is mainly borne by wealthier groups and non-residents, as lower- and middle-income Singaporeans are shielded by offsets. While high-income households and tourists do pay more GST due to higher consumption, the claim downplays the universal application of GST. Everyone pays 9% at the point of purchase, and the tax’s regressive impact hits lower-income groups harder proportionally. The assertion that foreigners and tourists are primary payers also ignores that GST revenue largely comes from domestic consumption, as Singapore’s resident population drives most economic activity.
- **Evidence of issue**: Wong previously noted that the top 20% of citizen households pay 42% of GST post-hike (up from 40%), but this still means the remaining 58% is borne by the bottom 80%, including lower- and middle-income groups. Tourism contributes to GST revenue, but Singapore’s economy relies heavily on local consumption, with retail and services driven by residents. Public reactions on forums highlight that ordinary Singaporeans feel the GST increase in daily expenses like “caipng” (economical rice), contradicting the claim that it primarily affects others. Economic studies show consumption taxes disproportionately burden lower-income groups, even with offsets, due to their higher spending-to-income ratio.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...g.7123327/)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim minimizes the GST’s impact on ordinary Singaporeans, creating a misleading impression that it’s a tax mostly for the wealthy or foreigners. This ignores the broad-based nature of GST and its real effects on all consumers, especially the less affluent, as felt in everyday costs.
5. **Implication: The GST hike was essential to avoid fiscal deficits and fund critical needs**
- **Why it’s questionable**: PM Wong argues that without the GST hike, Singapore would have faced budget deficits in 2024 and 2025, limiting funding for healthcare, seniors, and future investments. While the hike did boost revenue (estimated at $3.5 billion annually), the claim implies it was the only viable option, dismissing alternatives like wealth taxes, higher income taxes, or drawing on reserves. The article also notes unexpected corporate tax surpluses, which reduced the urgency of the GST hike, yet Wong insists it was critical. This raises questions about whether the hike’s timing and necessity were as absolute as claimed, especially given public hardship during high inflation.
- **Evidence of issue**: Opposition MPs, like Louis Chua, suggested alternatives like wealth or property taxes, which Wong rebutted as insufficient or harmful to competitiveness. However, Singapore’s strong fiscal position, with a $6.4 billion surplus in 2024 (versus a projected $778 million), suggests other revenue sources or reserve use could have delayed or softened the GST hike. Wong himself said no further GST increases are needed until 2030, implying current revenues are sufficient, which undercuts the urgency narrative. Public frustration, as seen in forum posts, questions why the hike was pushed through during economic hardship, suggesting a lack of flexibility.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...rence-wong)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The implication overstates the GST hike’s inevitability, ignoring viable alternatives and the government’s fiscal flexibility, as evidenced by surpluses. It frames the policy as a non-negotiable necessity, sidelining public concerns and opposition proposals without fully justifying why other options were unfeasible.
### Critical Perspective
The article, and PM Wong’s statements, reflect a PAP narrative that defends the GST hike as a responsible, carefully planned policy while portraying opposition critiques as opportunistic. However, several claims stretch the truth or oversimplify complex realities:
- The "great care" narrative ignores the tangible cost-of-living pressures felt by Singaporeans, as seen in public reactions and inflation data.
- Accusing the opposition of ignoring facts dismisses their data-driven arguments, stifling debate.
- Claims about effective GST rates and who pays the tax downplay the regressive nature of GST and its broad impact.
- The necessity of the hike is presented as absolute, despite fiscal surpluses and alternative revenue options.
These issues suggest a degree of rhetorical exaggeration or selective framing—colloquially "bullshit"—aimed at bolstering the PAP’s position ahead of GE2025. The government’s mitigation measures exist, but their effectiveness is overstated, and public discontent indicates a gap between official claims and lived experiences.
### Sources
The analysis draws on the provided article and related web results, particularly:
- for opposition critiques and GST burden data.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...rence-wong)
- for public sentiment on forums.[](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...g.7123327/)
-,,, for fiscal data, inflation figures, and alternative proposals.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...pore/polit
ics/pap-govt-will-always-uphold-fiscal-responsibility-pm-wong)
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...mise-votes
### Potential "Bullshit" Claims and Why They’re Problematic
Here are the identified claims or implications from the article that could be considered misleading, exaggerated, or questionable, along with explanations of why they might be problematic:
1. **Claim: The GST hike was implemented with ‘great care’**
- **Why it’s questionable**: The phrase "great care" is vague and subjective, implying meticulous planning and minimal negative impact without providing concrete evidence of what "care" entailed beyond general references to vouchers and rebates. While the government introduced measures like the Assurance Package and GST Voucher scheme, the article doesn’t detail how these fully offset the regressive nature of GST, which disproportionately affects lower-income households who spend a larger share of their income on consumption. Critics, including opposition MPs, have argued that the timing of the hike—during a period of global inflation—exacerbated cost-of-living pressures, suggesting the "care" may not have been as effective as claimed.
- **Evidence of issue**: Public sentiment, as reflected in online forums like HardwareZone, shows skepticism about the "care" claim, with users arguing that the hike still increased living costs for the poor and middle class, despite vouchers. For example, a user notes, "the increase will impact [the poor and middle class] much more than the rich," highlighting that the proportional burden is heavier for lower-income groups. Additionally, inflation data shows consumer price index (CPI) inflation at 6.1% in 2022, 4.8% in 2023, and 2.4% in 2024, indicating persistent price pressures during the GST hike period, which could undermine the "great care" narrative.[](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...t-increase)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim overstates the effectiveness of mitigation measures without acknowledging the real financial strain felt by many Singaporeans, as evidenced by public discontent and the opposition’s focus on cost-of-living concerns. It’s a rhetorical flourish that glosses over trade-offs and assumes universal acceptance of the policy’s execution.
2. **Claim: Opposition ignored facts to maximise votes**
- **Why it’s questionable**: This statement accuses opposition parties (e.g., Workers’ Party and Progress Singapore Party) of deliberately misrepresenting the GST hike’s impact for political gain, implying their critiques lack substance. However, opposition leaders like Pritam Singh and Leong Mun Wai have raised specific concerns—e.g., Singh’s claim that the GST hike "turbocharged" inflation and Leong’s argument that it disproportionately burdens the middle class. These are debatable points, but they engage with economic realities like inflation and income distribution, not just populist rhetoric. PM Wong’s dismissal risks oversimplifying legitimate policy disagreements as mere vote-chasing.
- **Evidence of issue**: The opposition’s arguments are grounded in data and public sentiment. Singh’s "turbocharged" claim, while hyperbolic, aligns with concerns about inflation peaking at 6.1% in 2022 before the GST hike, with additional price pressures in 2023–2024. Leong’s calculations, though disputed by Wong, suggest middle-income households bear a significant GST burden, which aligns with economic theory on consumption taxes. Public frustration, as seen in forum posts, supports the opposition’s focus on cost-of-living issues, indicating they’re reflecting real concerns, not just exploiting them.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...g.7123327/)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim paints the opposition’s critiques as entirely fact-free and politically motivated, ignoring their basis in economic data and public experience. It’s a rhetorical tactic to discredit dissent without engaging substantively with the arguments, which undermines fair debate.
3. **Claim: Lower- and middle-income residents pay less than 9% GST due to vouchers and rebates**
- **Why it’s questionable**: PM Wong asserts that permanent GST vouchers and rebates reduce the effective GST rate for lower- and middle-income households below the headline 9%, with some paying no GST at all. While the GST Voucher scheme and Assurance Package provide offsets, the claim oversimplifies the reality. Vouchers and rebates are finite and may not cover all consumption, especially for households with ongoing expenses. GST is applied at point-of-sale, meaning all consumers initially pay 9%, and offsets come later, which can strain cash flow for low-income families. Additionally, the effectiveness of these offsets depends on household size, spending patterns, and voucher usage, which the article doesn’t address.
- **Evidence of issue**: Forum users on HardwareZone challenge this claim, with one sarcastically noting, “Please dun tell me that it is through all the rebates and vouchers,” indicating public doubt about the offsets’ sufficiency. Economic analysis suggests consumption taxes like GST are regressive because lower-income households spend a higher proportion of their income on taxed goods. Wong himself acknowledges that middle-income households’ GST share decreases only slightly (from 19.2% to 18.6%), suggesting limited relief. If vouchers don’t fully match increased costs due to inflation or GST, the effective rate may still feel closer to 9% for many.[](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...rence-wong)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim exaggerates the relief provided by vouchers, implying a seamless reduction in GST burden that doesn’t fully align with the lived experience of many Singaporeans. It overlooks the regressive nature of GST and the practical limitations of offset mechanisms, presenting an overly rosy picture.
4. **Claim: The GST hike primarily affects foreigners, tourists, and high-income households**
- **Why it’s questionable**: PM Wong suggests that the 9% GST rate is mainly borne by wealthier groups and non-residents, as lower- and middle-income Singaporeans are shielded by offsets. While high-income households and tourists do pay more GST due to higher consumption, the claim downplays the universal application of GST. Everyone pays 9% at the point of purchase, and the tax’s regressive impact hits lower-income groups harder proportionally. The assertion that foreigners and tourists are primary payers also ignores that GST revenue largely comes from domestic consumption, as Singapore’s resident population drives most economic activity.
- **Evidence of issue**: Wong previously noted that the top 20% of citizen households pay 42% of GST post-hike (up from 40%), but this still means the remaining 58% is borne by the bottom 80%, including lower- and middle-income groups. Tourism contributes to GST revenue, but Singapore’s economy relies heavily on local consumption, with retail and services driven by residents. Public reactions on forums highlight that ordinary Singaporeans feel the GST increase in daily expenses like “caipng” (economical rice), contradicting the claim that it primarily affects others. Economic studies show consumption taxes disproportionately burden lower-income groups, even with offsets, due to their higher spending-to-income ratio.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...g.7123327/)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The claim minimizes the GST’s impact on ordinary Singaporeans, creating a misleading impression that it’s a tax mostly for the wealthy or foreigners. This ignores the broad-based nature of GST and its real effects on all consumers, especially the less affluent, as felt in everyday costs.
5. **Implication: The GST hike was essential to avoid fiscal deficits and fund critical needs**
- **Why it’s questionable**: PM Wong argues that without the GST hike, Singapore would have faced budget deficits in 2024 and 2025, limiting funding for healthcare, seniors, and future investments. While the hike did boost revenue (estimated at $3.5 billion annually), the claim implies it was the only viable option, dismissing alternatives like wealth taxes, higher income taxes, or drawing on reserves. The article also notes unexpected corporate tax surpluses, which reduced the urgency of the GST hike, yet Wong insists it was critical. This raises questions about whether the hike’s timing and necessity were as absolute as claimed, especially given public hardship during high inflation.
- **Evidence of issue**: Opposition MPs, like Louis Chua, suggested alternatives like wealth or property taxes, which Wong rebutted as insufficient or harmful to competitiveness. However, Singapore’s strong fiscal position, with a $6.4 billion surplus in 2024 (versus a projected $778 million), suggests other revenue sources or reserve use could have delayed or softened the GST hike. Wong himself said no further GST increases are needed until 2030, implying current revenues are sufficient, which undercuts the urgency narrative. Public frustration, as seen in forum posts, questions why the hike was pushed through during economic hardship, suggesting a lack of flexibility.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...rence-wong)
- **Why it’s bullshit**: The implication overstates the GST hike’s inevitability, ignoring viable alternatives and the government’s fiscal flexibility, as evidenced by surpluses. It frames the policy as a non-negotiable necessity, sidelining public concerns and opposition proposals without fully justifying why other options were unfeasible.
### Critical Perspective
The article, and PM Wong’s statements, reflect a PAP narrative that defends the GST hike as a responsible, carefully planned policy while portraying opposition critiques as opportunistic. However, several claims stretch the truth or oversimplify complex realities:
- The "great care" narrative ignores the tangible cost-of-living pressures felt by Singaporeans, as seen in public reactions and inflation data.
- Accusing the opposition of ignoring facts dismisses their data-driven arguments, stifling debate.
- Claims about effective GST rates and who pays the tax downplay the regressive nature of GST and its broad impact.
- The necessity of the hike is presented as absolute, despite fiscal surpluses and alternative revenue options.
These issues suggest a degree of rhetorical exaggeration or selective framing—colloquially "bullshit"—aimed at bolstering the PAP’s position ahead of GE2025. The government’s mitigation measures exist, but their effectiveness is overstated, and public discontent indicates a gap between official claims and lived experiences.
### Sources
The analysis draws on the provided article and related web results, particularly:
- for opposition critiques and GST burden data.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...rence-wong)
- for public sentiment on forums.[](https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...g.7123327/)
-,,, for fiscal data, inflation figures, and alternative proposals.[](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...pore/polit
ics/pap-govt-will-always-uphold-fiscal-responsibility-pm-wong)
