Singapore to invest over S$6m to train international aviation, maritime officials
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Commentary: What does it matter if Singaporeans spend their CDC or SG60 vouchers on ‘frivolous' items?
SINGAPORE: From this month, Singaporeans can start claiming their SG60 vouchers. Each adult citizen will receive S$600 in vouchers, while those aged 60 and above can claim S$800. This comes on top of S$800 in Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers which were given to each household earlier this year. Retailers have lost no time in offering discounts and promotions to entice Singaporeans to spend their vouchers on their products and services. However, a newspaper article published in May suggesting fun ways to make use of CDC vouchers – such as on dance apparel and craft workshops - prompted a flurry of online responses from netizens who felt that spending the vouchers on 'frivolous' items went against the stated intent of the vouchers, namely to help Singaporeans with the cost of living. IS THE ANGST JUSTIFIED? The truth is that while the vouchers are a lifeline for some households and individuals struggling with high living costs, they are for others no more than extra pocket money or even spare change. So is the angst over how the vouchers are spent justified? There are those who feel that SG60 vouchers should be distinguished from CDC vouchers in that the former are a celebratory gift while the latter are aimed at easing hardship. Others are not bothered about how vouchers – whether CDC or SG60 – are used. Their view is that once public money passes into private hands, people should be free to do whatever they want with it. After all, whether the vouchers are used to buy bread or a fancy meal, the spending will ultimately benefit businesses and boost the economy. Some have asked: Could the government have ringfenced the use of the vouchers to daily necessities? It is hard to draw a clear line between essential and discretionary expenditure. Moreover, money is fungible – saving on any kind of purchase frees up financial resources for spending on other items. There is a strong consensus among economists that giving assistance in cash or near-cash does more to improve consumer welfare than support that comes with conditions or restrictions because it offers recipients greater freedom of choice. DIFFERING SOCIAL BENEFIT PARADIGMS The crux of the issue may lie in differing concepts of what is prudent use of government money. On the one hand, there are Singaporeans who prefer not to receive cash handouts or vouchers as they feel that such support ought to be chanelled to the lower-income. This group is more likely to take umbrage at the use of vouchers for non-essential purchases. Targeting government support at those who need it most is still the approach adopted for most forms of social support in Singapore. These include means-tested housing and healthcare subsidies, as well as permanent social transfers such as the Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support and the Goods and Services Tax Voucher. This paradigm of social support contrasts with models of universal welfare where social support is seen as a citizenship right. The latter, however, necessitates high taxes to enable extensive redistribution. In Singapore, the government's priority is to keep taxes on the middle class low in order to encourage work and enterprise. Under what is known as a 'progressive' system of taxes and benefits, the rich bear a larger burden of taxes, while those with lower income receive more in social transfers or benefits. Consistent with this approach, the Ministry of Finance estimates that the bottom 20 per cent of households by income receives around S$4 in benefits for every dollar of tax paid, while the top 20 per cent receive just S$0.30 for every tax dollar. On the other hand, there are Singaporean who feel that all citizens who contribute to the state's coffers should be entitled to a range of benefits, and not just limited to public goods such as national security or infrastructure. Some may feel aggrieved if they are excluded from certain benefits on account of their income or wealth, particularly if they are contributing a significant amount in taxes. Like wealthy donors at a charity dinner who take pleasure in good food and a door gift, these high-income earners derive satisfaction from receiving vouchers and other Budget goodies, even if these offset only a small fraction of what they pay in taxes. AN INJECTION OF UNIVERSALISM Singapore's approach towards social benefits is in fact evolving. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic saw the government disburse a 'solidarity payment' of S$600 to all adult Singaporeans in recognition of the broad impact of the pandemic on the population, with additional support given to seniors and families with children. Rebates on utilities and service and conservancy charges, however, were tiered according to Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat type. Those who lost jobs or saw a significant fall in income could apply for further financial help through the COVID-19 Support Grant or COVID-19 Recovery Grant. Taken together, Singapore's COVID-19 support can be seen as a form of 'progressive universalism' – where everyone receives some benefits, but those with greater needs receive more. Following the pandemic, supply chain disruptions saw inflation shoot up across the world, including in Singapore. The government responded with a series of payouts to all Singaporeans in the form of CDC vouchers – the vouchers having the dual aim of providing cost of living support while giving heartland merchants a leg-up. Notwithstanding these examples of universal benefits, most social support is still means-tested or tiered according to income or home value. There are advantages to having a mix of benefits – some universal and others means-tested with differing qualifying income thresholds. This approach avoids a 'cliff effect' where benefits drop off suddenly when one's income crosses a particular threshold, which could discourage career and income advancement. Some elements of universality also make for greater inclusivity and sense of solidarity among citizens. A MIDDLE WAY? As inflation has receded from the post-pandemic highs, we may see fewer CDC vouchers disbursed in future. But for this year at least, vouchers are very much a part of the conversation. Singaporeans who have no need for this support can easily donate unused vouchers to their preferred Institutions of Public Character via the CDC voucher website; they will even qualify for a 250 per cent tax deduction. For those who are still in two minds on how government vouchers ought to be spent, perhaps a good strategy would be to set aside a portion of the vouchers to give away, and then spend the rest on whatever you wish with a clear conscience.
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Commentary: As more restaurants shut, is it time to rethink Singapore's F&B rules?
SINGAPORE: We've all seen the headlines: Crystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long Bao closes after 20 years in Holland Village. Wala Wala Cafe Bar ends its 32-year run. Ang Yong Seh, the 65-year-old co-owner of Xin Ming Road Bak Kut The dies after working 18-hour days to pay off COVID-19 pandemic debts. And in their shadow, a growing number of home-based food and beverage (F&B) businesses are flourishing. As at June 2025, more than 150 F&B businesses in Singapore are operating out of residential properties, from Housing and Development Board flats to landed homes. From cafes like Knead Kopi in Bukit Timah to informal eateries like Little Social in Tanjong Pagar, these home-based players are popping up all over the island. Meanwhile, each week seems to bring news of yet another licensed F&B establishment closing. Licensed F&B owners have voiced concerns of an uneven playing field, saying they shoulder high overheads, strict regulatory checks and multiple agency approvals, while many home-based operators face far fewer compliance obligations. They question whether current regulations are keeping up with the realities of Singapore's F&B landscape. THE WEIGHT OF COMPLIANCE Before the pandemic, Ang Yong Seh's stall was struggling to meet monthly costs including S$9,000 in rent and S$4,000 in employee salaries. During COVID-19, daily revenue sometimes dropped to just S$100 a day. Over three years, this accumulated into more than S$100,000 in debt, even though he worked seven days a week, taking only four days off during Chinese New Year. Kanada-Ya's parent company cited similar pressures when placing the ramen chain's Singapore subsidiaries under creditors' voluntary liquidation – 'challenging conditions of Singapore's F&B sector, including elevated operating costs and soft consumer spending patterns'. Despite signature menu items like black garlic ramen that initially drew crowds, the chain couldn't survive. As a former restaurant owner, I can tell you that licensed F&B outlets shoulder an enormous burden well before serving their first customer. Rent in prime locations can exceed S$20,000 monthly. You don't have to run a fancy fine-dining joint for fit-out costs to reach six figures. There are various regulatory requirements that businesses must meet, across agencies such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Singapore Food Agency (SFA), National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and Building and Construction Authority (BCA). On top of that, daily costs are compounded by things like utilities, safety inspections, staff training and wages, Central Provident Fund contributions, pest control, professional fees, regulatory delays, and so on. THE HOME ADVANTAGE Meanwhile, home-based food businesses operate in a seemingly parallel universe of minimal oversight. Consider Lucky House Cantonese Private Kitchen, run by Sam Wong from an East Coast terraced house. Charging S$130 a person and booked solid until March 2026, this operation serves up to 30 diners a night, five nights a week. That′s 150 paying customers weekly, generating just over S$1 million annually from a residential property that is neither licensed nor zoned for dine-in operations. Any other business earning more than S$1 million annually would be required to register for Goods and Services Tax (GST), report taxes quarterly and comply with a range of regulatory obligations. Operating as a home-based business exempts F&B players like Lucky House from SFA licensing, regular inspections and the full weight of commercial regulations. The regulatory blind spots extend further. In June, Raymond Leong, who runs Peranakan home-dining business Ampang Kitchen from a semi-detached house, admitted he was unaware that domestic helpers are not allowed to assist with home business activities. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of employment law that licensed establishments would never be permitted to ignore. PLAYING FIELD MUST BE LEVELLED Singapore has gained a reputation for being a country of regulations. We've also gained international admiration as a food haven blending multicultural identity and innovation. So when we lose local F&B players, we lose pieces of the Singaporean story as well as the physical spaces where our shared culture lives and breathes. The current regulatory framework may be well-intentioned, but we must be careful that it doesn't undermine F&B players' ability to survive, let alone thrive. I know this strain intimately. When I ran the now-defunct Jekyll & Hyde in Tanjong Pagar, we encountered unexpected zoning restrictions that resulted in a temporary shutdown, despite repeated efforts to comply with requirements. My experience is but one example of how navigating the ins and outs of compliance can be a significant source of financial strain. For smaller F&B operators especially, each round of clarification or modification can translate into lost revenue, disrupted staffing and uncertainty over long-term viability. It may be worth considering if the industry needs a tiered regulatory framework that scales requirements according to business scope and impact. Similar to how GST registration is tied to each business's revenue thresholds, perhaps it would be more useful to require small-scale F&B operations to comply with lighter or fewer regulations. Businesses serving significant numbers of customers or generating substantial revenue could face tiered requirements for licensing, safety compliance and zoning adherence – standards according to scale. It would also be a great help to see more government intervention in the problem of rising rents. For instance, could the authorities collaborate with landlords on rent stabilisation mechanisms, or co-invest in public space activation to boost foot traffic? The goal of this would not be to prop up underperforming businesses, but rather to preserve a vibrant F&B ecosystem where players with proven track records don't collapse under avoidable constraints. It seems only fair to expect that regulations don't inadvertently favour one group over another. More importantly, they shouldn't place an undue burden on businesses that are already making every effort to comply with both the spirit and letter of the law.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
‘Some cannot source outside China': S'pore firms' challenges and support needed amid US tariffs
Koda is a Singapore-listed furniture firm with operations in Malaysia, China and – most crucially – Vietnam. SINGAPORE – For the past three months, business owner Ernie Koh has been cycling through various scenarios in his head, pending finalisation of tariff rates for Vietnam. Mr Koh is director of Koda, a Singapore-listed furniture firm with operations in Malaysia, China and – most crucially – Vietnam, which struck a trade deal with the Trump administration on July 2. He has scenarios for both good and bad outcomes for Vietnam, and more 'what-ifs' that pit Vietnam against other markets that his competitors operate in, such as India, Malaysia and Indonesia. But the lack of detail on the tariffs and how other countries will be affected has created something of a Rubik's cube for firms trying to navigate these testing new waters. When US President Donald Trump declared sweeping global tariffs in April and warned countries not to sneak Chinese products into America through false declarations, Mr Koh asked his import shipping company to detail the amount of Chinese-sourced material in his products. 'It's only 6 per cent. Some of the fabric you cannot source anywhere outside of China,' he said, pointing out that there are four or five Singapore companies making furniture in Vietnam. The US is the biggest export market for Vietnam, and the biggest buyer of its furniture. The country has won a reduced 20 per cent tariff on its goods to the US, and 40 per cent on transshipped goods. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore HSA intensifies crackdown on vapes; young suspected Kpod peddlers nabbed in Bishan, Yishun Singapore Man charged over distributing nearly 3 tonnes of vapes in one day in Bishan, Ubi Avenue 3 Singapore Public healthcare institutions to record all Kpod cases, confiscate vapes: MOH, HSA Singapore Man allegedly attacks woman with knife at Kallang Wave Mall, to be charged with attempted murder Singapore Singapore boosts support for Timor-Leste as it prepares to join Asean Singapore UN aviation and maritime agencies pledge to collaborate to boost safety, tackle challenges Singapore High Court dismisses appeal of drink driver who killed one after treating Tampines road like racetrack Singapore 18 years' jail for woman who hacked adoptive father to death after tussle over Sengkang flat About 70 per cent of the finished products from Koda, which was set up in 1972, end up in US homes through stores such as Crate & Barrel, big-box retailers like Costco, and other brands it manufactures for. Mr Koh hopes the Singapore Government will turn its eye to businesses like his – Singapore-registered but operating overseas – that have traditionally been seen as successful and needing little support. The Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce set up to help businesses ride out these challenges on July 10 announced the Business Adaptation Grant, which will disburse up to $100,000 to a firm on a co-funding basis. Koda, if deemed eligible, could expect help in areas like trade compliance advisory, contracts, supply chains and market diversification. It could also get a lift for costs in logistics and inventory holding. But the task force also noted that a bigger scoop of the pot will go to local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for more jobs. Details are expected in October. The Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and Singapore Business Federation have been ramping up support through advisory services, workshops with trade experts to evaluate cost and regulatory risks in alternative hubs like Indonesia and India, as well as trade missions and symposiums. Some of the assistance is to mitigate competition from Chinese businesses, which have turned their attention to markets outside the US to invest in and sell their goods. Local businesses have never been cornered like this until now, where trade pressures, technological disruption and intensifying competition from Johor arrive in a perfect storm, said ASME president Ang Yuit. The association has observed that companies are activating diversification plans in the wake of the tariff that the US is imposing on Vietnam goods. The immediate challenge is 'managing potential 20 to 40 per cent cost increases for US customers due to tariffs and transshipment classifications', it said in response to queries from The Straits Times. ASME added that it is accelerating its internationalisation support to help smaller firms look beyond Singapore, which includes aggregating SMEs into overseas projects. But Mr Ang sees a silver lining: With the US tariffs expected to last, he believes Chinese investors will turn less opportunistic and more earnest about local integration. Chinese firms that tap into only their home country's supply chain and hire Chinese-speaking managers will find that they have reached a ceiling if they do not open up, he added. 'Chinese and Singaporean firms will partner more deeply to navigate compliance, build mutual value, and jointly access wider markets, making the quality and integration of the investment more significant,' he said. Mr Ang hopes policymakers will take a comprehensive relook at a range of policies, ranging from trade and tax rules, to SME competitiveness and regional integration. Rather than providing direct offsets to tariff impacts, ASME believes that support should focus on enabling diversification and long-term capital investment. To address immediate needs, targeted tax policy adjustments like enhanced capital allowances or greater deductibility can ease cash flow for companies needing to reinvest or relocate, it said. In the longer term, ASME said Singapore must review economic policies such as tax rules to align with the structural reconfiguration of global trade. Koda's Mr Koh hopes the Government will share financing and export risks with Singapore businesses. 'Especially for a manufacturer, sometimes you've got to give (credit) terms to your customer, and sometimes also to your supplier,' he added. 'So you're double financing front-end and back-end, and then you are very tight on your cash. If one of the big guys go under, they may drag you down.' Mr Koh's hands would also be tied if he wants to move capacity from one high-tariff jurisdiction to a lower-tariff one: 'If I want to increase my capacity in Malaysia, I need capital, I need to expand my factory.' Export insurance rates are also being scrutinised as insurers turn cautious, he said. Dr Deborah Elms, who heads trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, said continuing threats and changes to tariff timelines have made it difficult for companies to plan. She said: 'Some have accelerated production to ship products to the US while tariffs are lower. Others have stopped or postponed production until they have greater clarity. 'But uncertainty has a cost as well, including a lack of investment for new capacity.' Business are having to figure out how they are being penalised in respect to other nations in the same market. Dr Elms said: 'For clothing and textiles, for example, what matters is not just the rate given to Vietnam, but also the rates for Bangladesh, Cambodia and China. 'Any tariff is a challenge for firms, but one that hits all imports equally or nearly equally is not as damaging as one that hits your producers the hardest with the highest rates.' In Mr Koh's case, his American customers are showing him products that were made in China and asking if his firm – a specialist in dining sets – could make them in Vietnam. That should be good news, except that these customers are also asking him to split the costs of the tariffs. 'All the customers say, 'Let's share the tariff 50-50'. If the tariff is 10 per cent, the only way for us to win back the 5 per cent is to generate efficiency in our factory to cover up that 5 per cent. But manufacturing margins are not very fat,' he said. 'So, business is good, but profit may be an issue.' His customers – the retailers and distributors – will take the savings from his Vietnam imports to help cover the smaller profits in high-tariff countries such as China. 'The customers take from Peter and give it to Paul,' he surmised. While waiting for clarity on where tariffs will land, the best bet for business owners is to keep their balance sheet strong and reserve their gunpowder for when times get better, said Mr Koh.
