One of the main policy positions the #workersparty is advancing this #ge2020sg is an objection to a GST hike, of 7 to 9 percent. It’s worth understanding why such a move would be an error, both in the shorter and longer run. 
In the near term, a GST increase amounts to contractionary fiscal policy. If we believe that this could be a prolonged recession, a premature tightening of macro policy would short-circuit a nascent rebound, and the shock may even send the economy back into recession.
This largely describes the case of Japan, which has remained in a low-growth regime, and often fell into recession each time it either attempted to (or actually did) increase its consumption tax, ever since 1997. Consumption tax hikes may have well prolonged its lost decade(s).
The government appears to understand this, and has ruled out GST changes for 2021. While this is welcome, the refusal to end the proposal entirely can dampen expectations and weaken the stimulus effects of current fiscal expenditures (reduce the size of the fiscal multiplier).
Consumers that anticipate a future hike to finance part or all of the government spending this year will offset part or all of their extra cash in hand with increased saving, instead of directing it toward consumption (the extreme case of a total offset is Ricardian equivalence).
All this will diminish the efficacy of fiscal policy in the short run. But the proposal has pernicious long run consequences, too. When potential output of the economy is low (perhaps due to demographic factors), a small policy shock can have disproportionate effects on growth.
Another obvious effect is that GST (or any other form of consumption tax), while efficient, is also regressive. With Singapore’s income distribution already skewed in capital’s favor, a consumption tax would only serve to further exacerbate this inequality.
There are alternative ways to meet anticipated increases in future government spending needs. One is to slow the rate of reserve accumulation by raising the net interest returns contribution to 60 from the current 50 percent (this does not eat into principal and isn’t imprudent).
Another way is to channel a fraction of land sales receipts (which currently go toward reserves) toward meeting recurrent expenditures like health and education. The common govt argument that land represents assets ignores the fact that human capital is an asset, too.
This speaks to a fundamental bias in favor of capital (physical or land), as opposed to labor and human capital. By voting the #workersparty, you can help redress this imbalance, among the most severe in rich economies, and return more power to the worker #makeyourvotecount
