Month: April 2023

Balancing Cultural Diversity and Delivery Efficiency: The Debate on Changing Stall Signs to English

In light of the recent incident involving a Foodpanda rider struggling to locate a stall due to language barriers, it raises the question of whether stall signs should be changed to English in order to accommodate the diverse workforce of delivery riders in Singapore.

While the idea of changing stall signs to English might seem like a simple solution, it is essential to take into account the importance of preserving Singapore’s multicultural heritage.

@man_grabpandarider

#foodpanda #foodpandariders #fooddelivery #grabfood #mannasir #deliveroo

♬ original sound – Man Pandarider – Man Grab Panda Rider 🇸🇬
A foodpanda rider has now taken to TikTok to point out one of the reasons behind a delayed delivery.

Resolving this issue requires collaboration among the government, stall owners, and food delivery platforms. The government can provide support and guidance at the policy level by establishing standards and guidelines for stall owners. Stall owners should recognize that improving signage can help enhance delivery efficiency, ultimately attracting more customers. Food delivery platforms should also take responsibility for communicating with stall owners to ensure that the information displayed on their apps matches the actual situation.

Additionally, attention should be paid to other challenges faced by delivery riders, such as road safety, work pressure, and labor rights. To improve the overall standards of the food delivery industry, all parties should work together to address these issues and create a fair, safe, and efficient delivery environment.

In conclusion, finding a balance between respecting cultural diversity and improving delivery efficiency is crucial when considering whether stall signs should be changed to English. Through the joint efforts of all stakeholders, we can ensure that Singapore’s food delivery industry continues to develop and improve while addressing challenges. This will not only enhance customer satisfaction but also provide more support and care for delivery riders in their work.

Singapore Government Cracks Down on Real Estate Tax Evasion: Unveiling the 100-1 Scheme

Recently, the Singapore government has begun cracking down on tax evasion in the real estate sector, particularly a loophole known as the “100-1 scheme.”

This scheme allows Buyer A to purchase a property first, and after fulfilling the sales agreement, sell 1% of the property ownership to Buyer B (who may have to pay additional stamp duty and have a higher loan limit). This method achieves the goal of tax savings and higher loan amounts but is highly unethical and even illegal.

The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has launched a rigorous investigation into this issue. In this scheme, Buyer A is typically a child with no property ownership, exempt from paying the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD). Before the transaction is completed, the child sells 1% of the property to their parents, who may already own properties, enabling the parents to pay only 1% of the property price as ABSD, achieving tax savings and higher loan limits. However, this scheme is illegal, and the IRAS may scrutinize all similar transactions since the implementation of the ABSD policy in 2011. Violators will face tax evasion fines ranging from 50% to 400%.

It is worth noting that the 100-1 scheme is different from the 99-1 scheme. In the 99-1 scheme, a married couple pays the ABSD according to their respective statuses and, through a law firm, each holds a 99-1 property ownership share. This arrangement facilitates future decoupling of the ownership: one party sells 1% of the ownership to the other, allowing one of them to purchase another property. This scheme does not involve tax evasion since both parties have already paid the ABSD at the outset.

The Singapore government’s crackdown on tax evasion in the real estate sector aims to maintain a fair and just tax environment. For those looking to purchase property, it may be wise to buy sooner rather than later.

新加坡政府严查房地产逃税行为：揭秘100-1操作

近日，新加坡政府开始严查房地产领域中的逃税行为，尤其是被称为“100-1操作”的漏洞。

这种操作允许买家A先购买期房，履行买卖协议后再将1%的产权卖给买家B（可能需交额外印花税，贷款额度高），从而达到省税和提高贷款额度的目的。然而，这种做法非常不道德，甚至违法。

新加坡税务局对此展开了严格调查。据悉，这种操作中，买家A通常是名下没有房产的孩子，不需要交额外购房印花税（ABSD）。

在交易完成前，孩子将1%的产权卖给名下已有房产的父母，令父母仅需支付1%房价的ABSD，从而达到省税和提高贷款额度的目的。

然而，这种操作违法，税务局可能对2011年实施ABSD政策以来的所有类似交易进行审查。

违规者将面临50%-400%的逃税罚款。 值得一提的是，100-1操作与99-1操作不同。99-1操作中，夫妻双方按照各自身份交了ABSD后，通过律师行各自持有99-1的产权，便于以后分拆产权。一方将1%产权卖给另一方，从而使其中一方可以再购买房产。这种操作并不存在逃税行为，因为双方一开始就已交纳ABSD。

新加坡政府对房地产领域的逃税行为展开严查，旨在维护公平正义的税收环境。对于有意购房的人士，尽早购买房产或许是明智之举。

预约困难？新加坡患者寻求医疗救助面临挑战

“谁能预测明天会生病？”

新加坡人在排队和在线预约方面的技巧堪称世界领先。

然而，在预约综合诊疗所的名额方面，许多患者感到不安。一位网友在Reddit上表达了在网上预约综合诊疗所的困难：

“过去，生病时可以直接去综合诊疗所看病，无需预约。如今，你必须提前预约名额，这使得突然生病的患者难以在当天就诊。”

这一现象表明，新加坡的医疗资源可能面临压力，需要政府采取措施来解决。政府可以考虑增加综合诊疗所的名额，以便更多患者能够得到及时的治疗。此外，政府还可以优化预约系统，提高预约效率，以满足患者的需求。

为了应对这一问题，许多网友分享了自己的经历和建议。有人提到紧急情况的病患可以优先就诊，非紧急情况的病患可以去附近的社区医疗援助计划诊所就诊。此外，一些网友建议提前关注预约系统的开放时间，争取提前预约到名额。

同时，这一问题引发了其他疑问，例如，为什么有些综合诊疗所很难预约到名额，而有些却可以？网友们认为这可能与诊所所在地区的人口密度和年龄结构有关。有些地区的居民中年长者较多，因此预约名额需求量大。

政府可以在这方面采取更多措施，例如设立专门服务年长者的诊所，以减轻综合诊疗所的压力。同时，政府还可以加强与民间合作，鼓励更多私人诊所参与社区医疗援助计划，为患者提供更多选择。

总之，新加坡政府需要关注这一问题，并采取有效措施确保医疗资源的公平分配，让所有患者都能得到及时、合适的医疗服务。

Booking Challenges? Singapore Patients Facing Difficulties Seeking Medical Help

“Who can predict falling sick tomorrow?”

Singaporeans are known for their top-notch skills in queuing up and online booking.

However, when it comes to booking slots at polyclinics, many patients are feeling uneasy. A netizen expressed difficulties in booking polyclinic appointments online on Reddit:

“In the past, you could go straight to the polyclinic when you were sick without making an appointment. Nowadays, you must book in advance, making it difficult for patients who fall sick suddenly to see a doctor on the same day.”

This phenomenon suggests that Singapore’s medical resources may be under pressure and require government intervention. The government could consider increasing the number of slots at polyclinics to allow more patients to receive timely treatment. In addition, the government could optimize the booking system to improve efficiency and meet patients’ needs.

In response to this issue, many netizens shared their experiences and suggestions. Some mentioned that patients in emergency situations can receive priority treatment, while non-emergency patients can visit nearby Community Health Assistance Scheme clinics. Moreover, some netizens suggested keeping an eye on the opening times of the booking system to secure appointments in advance.

At the same time, this issue raises other questions, such as why some polyclinics are difficult to book while others are not? Netizens believe that this may be related to the population density and age structure of the area where the clinic is located. Some areas have a higher proportion of elderly residents, resulting in greater demand for appointment slots.

The government could take more measures in this regard, such as setting up clinics dedicated to serving the elderly to alleviate the pressure on polyclinics. Meanwhile, the government could also strengthen cooperation with the private sector, encouraging more private clinics to participate in the Community Health Assistance Scheme, providing patients with more options.

In conclusion, the Singapore government needs to pay attention to this issue and take effective measures to ensure the fair distribution of medical resources, allowing all patients to receive timely and appropriate medical services.