Singapore Expats Forum

Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
Brah
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sat, 18 Dec 2010

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby Brah » Mon, 20 Apr 2015 7:28 pm

Just fueling the fire of yet more reasons to leave, add it to the stupid cost of living, lack of cultural and intellectual vibe, and general uncompetitiveness it makes you for retiring back home.

I will never go to a place like Aquatic Centre if I have to pay more for it.
Ape Shall Not Kill Ape.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby JR8 » Mon, 20 Apr 2015 7:52 pm

Brah wrote:Just fueling the fire of yet more reasons to leave, add it to the stupid cost of living, lack of cultural and intellectual vibe, and general uncompetitiveness it makes you for retiring back home.
I will never go to a place like Aquatic Centre if I have to pay more for it.


It has that sense of 'chipping' [pushing a negotiated deal hard and beyond a reasonable or wise settlement, so that you ultimately lose any and all goodwill simply for the sake of a further final 10 cents].

In Vietnam I recall there being 'dual-pricing' on many attractions, particularly the temples. Locals might pay $x, tourists $10x. You couldn't help but feeling somewhat exploited, especially after the huge cost of getting there. There came a point after having seen a few temples that you wondered if you should visit more, solely because it seemed you were simply a useful passing cash-cow getting milked. It left a bad taste in the mouth. This is the only place I've ever encountered such 'deal-pricing', and it was a long while ago, I don't know if they still do it.

Why not go the whole-hog a la China, or at least how it was when I last visited, and issue a parallel Non-SC/PR resident currency? Say locals change US$1 and get the current S$1.35 in cash. But non-residents get Foreign Exchange Certificates [FEC] 1.35, that can only be used in approved locations, and which are exchanged at a much worse rate.
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9812
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby ecureilx » Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:36 pm

JR8 wrote:.


thinking aloud, how is the unified pricing system working for NHS ?? :o :o

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby Barnsley » Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:38 am

ecureilx wrote:
JR8 wrote:.


thinking aloud, how is the unified pricing system working for NHS ?? :o :o


In what sense?
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9812
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby ecureilx » Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:10 pm

Barnsley wrote:
ecureilx wrote:
JR8 wrote:.


thinking aloud, how is the unified pricing system working for NHS ?? :o :o


In what sense?

Last I read NHS is overloaded and struggling, with a lot of medical tourists taking advantage of Uk's lax charging system for foreign patients and .... there are cries to make foreigners pay higher rates (or maybe I am reading too much of dailywail )

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby Barnsley » Tue, 21 Apr 2015 1:13 pm

ecureilx wrote:
Last I read NHS is overloaded and struggling, with a lot of medical tourists taking advantage of Uk's lax charging system for foreign patients and .... there are cries to make foreigners pay higher rates (or maybe I am reading too much of dailywail )


Thats the price you pay for having a universal healthcare system , it probably is overloaded, folk are living longer , new treatments are being discovered and get implemented opening a whole new group to treatment. Thats the reality of healthcare.

I think non-EU nationals have to pay anyway.

I guess your all for if you cant afford to pay the going rates for insurance to get even basic healthcare then that is your own problem right?
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby JR8 » Tue, 21 Apr 2015 3:03 pm

Barnsley wrote:
ecureilx wrote:Last I read NHS is overloaded and struggling, with a lot of medical tourists taking advantage of Uk's lax charging system for foreign patients and .... there are cries to make foreigners pay higher rates (or maybe I am reading too much of dailywail )

Thats the price you pay for having a universal healthcare system , it probably is overloaded, folk are living longer , new treatments are being discovered and get implemented opening a whole new group to treatment. Thats the reality of healthcare.
I think non-EU nationals have to pay anyway.
I guess your all for if you cant afford to pay the going rates for insurance to get even basic healthcare then that is your own problem right?


The NHS is a very curious beast, and in many ways untouchable. It was created in the aftermath of WW2 (1948). Rich and poor had fought side by side, and the idea of those less fortunate being unable to have access to healthcare was no longer deemed acceptable. So what you have is a health system still based very largely on that ideal. I grew up with the belief that the NHS is free. Some people are disabused of that once they get a job, pay taxes, and realise a lot of goes to something that's very$$$, a monopoly provider, and which no politician can dare try and streamline, modify, ration etc. A great many people still simply think of the NHS as free. If there is a holy cow in the UK, it's probably the NHS.

A contrary experience that I've had would be that in the US, where ... well, ambulances haven't quite got credit card machines at stretcher height on the doors... but if you can't pay in advance, on arrival at a medical facility, they at least need proof you're insured, and or will pay. I believe it's the same here in SG, and it would seem a generally common-sense business approach.

So what you have with the NHS is a system from the pre-globalisation era. Prior to the advent of mass commercial aviation etc. These days you have health tourism. You could be from the Mongolian Steppes, hear you need say cancer treatment that you can't afford, and if you're able to get to the UK and find a hospital (AFAIK) they're are duty-bound to provide it. You can see how that is wide open to exploitation. These days they do try and control health tourism, and if you're not entitled to free* treatment they will attempt to charge you.

So it's not a case of 'tourists being charged more', it's a case of foreigners not being provided treatment for 'free' or more cheaply, which those entitled to treatment have paid for via their taxes at full price. The opposite of what you were suggesting in fact.

p.s. Another example of the idea held by many that the NHS is free is prescription charges. I still get a shock when ever I go to my GP here. Seeing the doctor for allergies or a persistent cold? That'll be $150 for the consultation and five packets of pills. The reflex thought is invariably 'Bloody hell, back home that would have been free'. That said UK prescriptions are no longer free, you pay a flat rate per item, what ever it is. This is probably why antibiotics are not over-prescribed as happens here, there's no incentive in it. I remember when a prescription cost under £1. Last time I had one I was surprised to find it had risen to something like £6.50. I just checked it's now £8.20.

Last time I was at the doctors here it was for an ear infection. I was prescribed anti-biotics, Glaxo's Augmentin. I was stunned at the cost of those pills alone, something insane (to me, vs the NHS experience) like S$200 :shock: The only rather ironic ray of light within that being that Glaxo is one of my long-term core stock holdings so I figured I'll get a partial indirect 'rebate' in due course.

Edit to add:
* After posting this, I re-read it, and you see what I did... I suggested the NHS is free. QED. That's just how deeply ingrained the idea is!
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

curiousgeorge
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu, 03 Jan 2008
Location: Singapore

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby curiousgeorge » Tue, 21 Apr 2015 9:09 pm

Wd40 wrote:I know, there are many walks of life where already there is differential pricing:
blah blah blah
7) Safra sports facilities

So already most govt facilities there is differential pricing.


This strikes me as odd. I would have thought that anyone who served in the Singapore Armed Forces would enjoy the discount there. I wasn't aware that there were non-PR/Citizens who served in the forces and then had to pay more to use the services.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby JR8 » Tue, 21 Apr 2015 9:18 pm

curiousgeorge wrote:
Wd40 wrote:I know, there are many walks of life where already there is differential pricing:
blah blah blah
7) Safra sports facilities

So already most govt facilities there is differential pricing.


This strikes me as odd. I would have thought that anyone who served in the Singapore Armed Forces would enjoy the discount there. I wasn't aware that there were non-PR/Citizens who served in the forces and then had to pay more to use the services.


I hadn't realised SAFRA was even open to the public, I thought it was aimed at the SAF and their families.

Rather different from say a 'general' public swimming pool...
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby Strong Eagle » Wed, 22 Apr 2015 8:37 pm

JR8 wrote:
curiousgeorge wrote:
Wd40 wrote:I know, there are many walks of life where already there is differential pricing:
blah blah blah
7) Safra sports facilities

So already most govt facilities there is differential pricing.


This strikes me as odd. I would have thought that anyone who served in the Singapore Armed Forces would enjoy the discount there. I wasn't aware that there were non-PR/Citizens who served in the forces and then had to pay more to use the services.


I hadn't realised SAFRA was even open to the public, I thought it was aimed at the SAF and their families.

Rather different from say a 'general' public swimming pool...


SAFRA isn't open to the general public, except for guests who accompany members. Guests pay a different price than SAF members but I don't know if there is a differential for PR's versus EP's.

The exception, AFAIK, is the 9 hole golf course at Changi Coast Road... I've played there several times without needing a SAF member with me.

User avatar
the lynx
Governor
Governor
Posts: 5272
Joined: Thu, 09 Dec 2010
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location:

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby the lynx » Thu, 23 Apr 2015 9:30 am

Same thing to the SAFRA bowling alley and wall climbing facilties.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6842
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby zzm9980 » Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:28 am

Your poor examples only work in places where those foreigners aren't paying taxes. All of the Singaporean examples are services used by residents who live here. While those services may be subsidized, it comes from the same income tax paid by SC, PR, and resident foreigners (EP/WP). Why is it "fair" to charge them more when they already pay the same income tax?

A great example is local schools. Foreigners pay a rate that is essentially unsubsidized. At least in many foreign countries you could deduct this expense from your income tax.



ecureilx wrote:
ginger_bread wrote:.
So sad. I don't know why people keep talking about stop "subsidizing foreigners".


Apparently a lot of public utilities and services such as transport are massively subsidized by government ..

So it's about time non citizens pay the fair cost .. is the intention of the govt and the general populace ..

...add to it the suddenly very vocal voting population that is finding the small red being over crowded so fast ... and the govt has to appease the voters or the rulers will be jobless, and new rulers may turn all previous policies 180 degree, .just for the fun of doing it (in Asia political vengeance always overrides national interests ... ) and companies will find Singapore unstable and unattractive and the neighbors, who have been trying very hard to have a slice of Singapore's economic success, will find things just fit easier (just look at Malaysia and their recent reclamation near Tuas, and the location of PTP, for example), and then all of us can pack and leave

It's politics and reality ... I wouldn't whine

After all in many Asian countries foreigners pay massively inflated foreigner rate..ex in a country's zoo, locals pay 100 buck, which is like 4$, and foreigners pay 40$, only usd accepted

In another country locals can join the local buffet at 2$ but foreigners must pay 20$ for the same buffet ... even if the foreigner is with local friends or even married to a local .. you look foreign , pay foreign rates.

And in another, foreigners are psyched into taking limo from airport at 100$ whereas locals can take regular taxi and pay 10$. And airport authority will insist rich foreigners must pay more, and local taxis are not recommended for foreigners ....as do their national tourism board who say yes to charging more for foreigners.

And in another country foreigner are never told about cheap hotels and the tourism board acts like the cheaper hotels are never safe for rich foreigners ...

things are not that bad in Singapore, says me.

hotandhumid
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon, 11 Nov 2013
Location: Singapore

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby hotandhumid » Tue, 05 May 2015 2:15 am

for pete's sake....

@zzm9980 - sure, you're paying taxes just like the rest of them (and us). However, note that it is their CPF (read: Locals and PRs) that are the primary sources of their maintenance and public funds. That you would think income taxes (effectively ~ 5%-15%) sustains this country is laughable.
Regarding school fees, they are by default high anywhere else in the world so long as you are not local. Given the low tax rates here, how much does tax deductibility really benefit you?

I still recall paying 40%+ income taxes back in continental Europe, which went into funding their generous and inequitable welfare programmes even though I stood to gain zilch had I ever lost my job.
Furthermore, I have found the cost of living here to be comparable to the West. Factor in salaries of similar quantums of the West with SG's lower taxes , and you are still better off by miles even after allowing for 'foreigner premiums'. So you have to pay an extra $5/$10 for something, so what? You've lost some, but you have already gained so much more.

@sundaymorningstaple - 'shrinking genetic pool' [paraphrase] - sensing much latent animosity here. Still, your comment brings to mind UK's shrinking proportion of Anglo's. Go figure.
Lets air-condition the entire island please

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby Strong Eagle » Tue, 05 May 2015 3:28 am

hotandhumid wrote:However, note that it is their CPF (read: Locals and PRs) that are the primary sources of their maintenance and public funds. That you would think income taxes (effectively ~ 5%-15%) sustains this country is laughable.


EP's used to be able to voluntarily contribute in the same amounts as citizens but that was prohibited in 2005. Why?

In any event, CPF is not 'the primary sources of their maintenance and public funds'. Check the Singapore budget, page 6: http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/ ... diture.pdf

Personal income taxes are the second largest tax source after corporate taxes. All revenues are tax based

There's no mention of CPF as a revenue source... and for good reason... CPF money is INVESTED by the CPF board in a variety of private and semi-private holdings. Take a look at the CPF annual reports... I guarantee you'll find no line item supporting your assertion that CPF funds maintenance.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9812
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: RE: Re: Non-residents to pay more for public sports facilities

Postby ecureilx » Tue, 05 May 2015 9:56 am

Strong Eagle wrote:[]
EP's used to be able to voluntarily contribute in the same amounts as citizens but that was prohibited in 2005. Why?.


I think it was way before 2005, 2002 I think ..

Btw Singapore has been prompt in returning Cpf of those who give up SC or PR.

If they had it spent on roads etc, how could they do that ? Beats me


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests