Letters to the Editor, December 14, 2013
My letter ("Firm stance needed on tax loopholes", December 2) seems to have touched a raw nerve with John Chan ("Singapore is tax haven, just like HK", December 9).
My letter ("Firm stance needed on tax loopholes", December 2) seems to have touched a raw nerve with John Chan ("Singapore is tax haven, just like HK", December 9).
Perhaps in his haste to defend Singaporean values against any perceived criticism from "arch-rival" Hong Kong he has totally missed my point.
Mr Chan suggests I should "watch my own backyard", but that was exactly my point, for I asked Hong Kong's financial secretary, John Tsang Chun-wah, to take action against loopholes, not Singapore's minister for finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam. I agree with your correspondent that Singapore and Hong Kong may be viewed as tax havens by many other jurisdictions. I have no problem with this, as both places must look after their own interests.
But I do have a problem with companies, particularly multinationals, that avoid and evade paying their dues at source as a direct result of their use of local assets.
I disagree that this is a "flippant" matter. By applying methods of circuitous transfer pricing and service agreements between subsidiaries and sister companies, these companies essentially cheat their customers and clients. As an example, tax avoidance measures by Amazon, Google and Starbucks in the UK created British outrage and public protest.
It is most probable that taxes payable in Singapore have also taken a discounting long and winding road through such places as Delaware, Ireland, the Netherlands, and a variety of small Caribbean islands, as well as Hong Kong.