This is how the Indonesian government consoles itself for the success of Singapore, while Indonesia still has to resort to destroying their natural heritage to simply make a living.
And this urban legend/conspiracy theory will refuse to die. So here is the latest episode.]
Indonesia says it is prepared to take on Singapore over tax amnesty scheme
July 22, 2016
JAKARTA — Indonesia has said it is prepared to take on Singapore as it attempts to recover millions stashed by Indonesian citizens overseas via a tax amnesty programme, after media reports accused Singaporean banks of imposing hurdles by allegedly luring Indonesian customers with a special scheme to leave their assets in the city state instead of repatriating them.
“Every country wants to survive,” Vice-President Jusuf Kalla told reporters on Thursday (July 21). “It (only) proves what people always say that most of the money stashed in Singapore comes from Indonesia.”
[Wow. Proof in Indonesia is very simple. And stupid. ]
Minister of Finance Bambang Brodjonegoro said he is not afraid of the move by the Singaporean banks. “Just let it be, I am not afraid of Singapore which is just a small country like that,” he told Indonesian media on Tuesday.
The Indonesia’s Parliament last month passed a tax amnesty law aimed at drawing billions of dollars from wealthy Indonesians abroad and from tax evaders at home to help finance infrastructure and boost economic growth.
The law, which kicked in on July 18, grants special personal income tax rates to tax evaders who declare their past earnings between this month and next March. People and companies that declare their earnings and pay the special taxes will not be penalised for having failed to declare them before. Indonesia, a country of more than 250 million people, has only about 30 million registered taxpayers.
Under the amnesty, tax rates will range from two to 10 per cent, depending on how quickly an individual declares his assets and whether the capital is repatriated to Indonesia.
For assets declared but not repatriated from July to September, a rate of four per cent is applied.
Mr Brodjonegoro had said the amnesty is expected to draw about 165 trillion rupiah (S$16.9 billion) for the government, while some reports had suggested that as much as US$200 billion (S$269.6 billion) was deposited in Singapore.
Indonesia says it is prepared to take on Singapore over tax amnesty scheme
July 22, 2016
JAKARTA — Indonesia has said it is prepared to take on Singapore as it attempts to recover millions stashed by Indonesian citizens overseas via a tax amnesty programme, after media reports accused Singaporean banks of imposing hurdles by allegedly luring Indonesian customers with a special scheme to leave their assets in the city state instead of repatriating them.
“Every country wants to survive,” Vice-President Jusuf Kalla told reporters on Thursday (July 21). “It (only) proves what people always say that most of the money stashed in Singapore comes from Indonesia.”
[Wow. Proof in Indonesia is very simple. And stupid. ]
Minister of Finance Bambang Brodjonegoro said he is not afraid of the move by the Singaporean banks. “Just let it be, I am not afraid of Singapore which is just a small country like that,” he told Indonesian media on Tuesday.
The Indonesia’s Parliament last month passed a tax amnesty law aimed at drawing billions of dollars from wealthy Indonesians abroad and from tax evaders at home to help finance infrastructure and boost economic growth.
The law, which kicked in on July 18, grants special personal income tax rates to tax evaders who declare their past earnings between this month and next March. People and companies that declare their earnings and pay the special taxes will not be penalised for having failed to declare them before. Indonesia, a country of more than 250 million people, has only about 30 million registered taxpayers.
Under the amnesty, tax rates will range from two to 10 per cent, depending on how quickly an individual declares his assets and whether the capital is repatriated to Indonesia.
For assets declared but not repatriated from July to September, a rate of four per cent is applied.
Mr Brodjonegoro had said the amnesty is expected to draw about 165 trillion rupiah (S$16.9 billion) for the government, while some reports had suggested that as much as US$200 billion (S$269.6 billion) was deposited in Singapore.
[I like suggestions. You don't need to offer any evidence or proof for mere "suggestions".]
It was reported in Indonesian media that Singaporean banks have offered to pay the tariff difference — four per cent versus two per cent — between declaring the assets and not repatriating them to Indonesia between July and September.
Mr Yustinus Prastowo, the executive director of Centre for Indonesia Taxation Analysis, told the Jakarta Globe he had heard about the offer firsthand from Indonesian businesspeople who have been approached personally by private agents.
[He may have heard it "firsthand", but as he reported it, we know of it thirdhand, or as hearsay. Note that he does not name names. Neither the businesspersons that told him this, nor the banks behind this "offer". And why would people tell him this? From a FB comment:
“This type of incentive is legal and the Indonesian government must be ready to face it,” Mr Prastowo said.
Indonesian House of Representatives Speaker Ade Komarudin urged the Singapore Government not to thwart the tax amnesty programme.
“I want to remind Singapore to put away the policy and I hope that (news about the incentive by banks) are not true, because it will very much obstruct the success of the Tax Amnesty Law”, he said.
According to Mr Komarudin, Singapore’s economy would also be affected if the tax amnesty was thwarted. “We’ve been friends for a long-time, don’t ruin it for your ego”, he said.
Mr Robin Heng, the Global Market Head for Indonesia and Philippines of the Bank of Singapore — the private banking arm of OCBC, told TODAY that: “Bank of Singapore will not be paying the tariff difference of two per cent for clients in order to keep their funds in Singapore.”
“It is not appropriate for us to do so,” Mr Heng added. The other banks contacted did not comment by press time.
Singapore banks may face outflows of billions of dollars if Indonesia floats a tax amnesty
So, when Indonesia once again, repeats its same old urban legend about wealthy Indonesians parking their ill-gotten gains in Singapore, what does MAS or the SG govt do?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Why? We acted against our own banks (DBS) for the 1MDB why aren't we acting on the Indonesian's complaint?
MAS probes operations of DBS too over 1MDB
Straits Times
SINGAPORE • Singapore's central bank is scrutinising several banks, including UBS and DBS Group Holdings, to see if they broke anti-money laundering rules in handling transactions linked to scandal-hit Malaysian state fund 1MDB, three people with knowledge of the matter said.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is looking at several aspects of the banks' operations such as whether they were diligent enough in knowing who their customers were and what the source of their funds was, and whether they were particularly careful in screening politically exposed persons such as government officials, said banking and legal sources.
The probe could lead to fines and other penalties if lapses are found, said the sources, who declined to be identified. It is unclear which bank transactions are being examined.
Switzerland's Falcon Private Bank and Coutts International, owned by Geneva-based Union Bancaire Privee, are also among the banks under review, they said. UBS, Coutts and DBS, Singapore's top lender, declined to comment. When asked about the MAS review, a Zurich-based spokesman for Falcon said: "We have transparently shared our view and have nothing to add."
Falcon, which is owned by one of the world's leading sovereign wealth funds - Abu Dhabi's International Petroleum Investment Company - has previously said it is in contact with the MAS and cooperating with the authorities.
The MAS is in talks with several banks and will make an announcement on any punitive action against them after the review is completed, sources said. The full details are not known at this stage.
An MAS spokesman referred Reuters to its statement in March when it said that "as part of its investigations into possible money-laundering and other offences in Singapore, it has been conducting a thorough review of various transactions as well as fund flows through our banking system".
The latest probes follow the MAS' decision in May to close down the operations of Swiss private bank BSI in Singapore for serious breaches of anti-money laundering rules, the first time in 32 years it has taken such action against a bank.
The MAS said then that there had been gross misconduct by some of BSI's staff and poor management oversight of the bank's operations.
Though the MAS did not specifically say this related to 1MDB-related transactions, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority said then that BSI had committed serious breaches of money laundering regulations through business relationships and transactions linked to the scandal surrounding 1MDB.
The MAS also imposed a $13.3 million fine on the bank and, on the same day in May, the Swiss authorities said they would seize 95 million Swiss francs (S$130.2 million) of BSI's profits.
Malaysian companies and banks linked to 1MDB are at the centre of corruption and money laundering probes that have led investigators to look at transactions and financial relationships across the globe.
Probes are being conducted by the authorities in the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
REUTERS
[I waited to post this because I expected an official rebuttal. So here it is. However, TODAY is simply rehashing a lot of the earlier article to fill space. So a little repetitive, but included in full for transparency.]
Singapore 'not thwarting' Indonesia’s tax amnesty programme
It was reported in Indonesian media that Singaporean banks have offered to pay the tariff difference — four per cent versus two per cent — between declaring the assets and not repatriating them to Indonesia between July and September.
Mr Yustinus Prastowo, the executive director of Centre for Indonesia Taxation Analysis, told the Jakarta Globe he had heard about the offer firsthand from Indonesian businesspeople who have been approached personally by private agents.
[He may have heard it "firsthand", but as he reported it, we know of it thirdhand, or as hearsay. Note that he does not name names. Neither the businesspersons that told him this, nor the banks behind this "offer". And why would people tell him this? From a FB comment:
"...why would businesspeople report this to Mr Prastowo? If they are truly dishonest people who intend to take advantage of this scheme, why tell anybody? Successful crooks do not stay successful by telling honest (presumably) people their kang-tow. And if they are truly repentant and want to do the right thing, then the right thing would include blowing the whistle on these "private agents" of the banks. Or the banks for which these private agents are acting for."With banks offering less than 1% interest rate, it makes NO SENSE for any bank to offer to pay 2% to hold onto deposits. But "no sense" is what the Indonesians seem to live with on a daily basis. case in point, Jusuf Kalla.]
“This type of incentive is legal and the Indonesian government must be ready to face it,” Mr Prastowo said.
Indonesian House of Representatives Speaker Ade Komarudin urged the Singapore Government not to thwart the tax amnesty programme.
“I want to remind Singapore to put away the policy and I hope that (news about the incentive by banks) are not true, because it will very much obstruct the success of the Tax Amnesty Law”, he said.
According to Mr Komarudin, Singapore’s economy would also be affected if the tax amnesty was thwarted. “We’ve been friends for a long-time, don’t ruin it for your ego”, he said.
Mr Robin Heng, the Global Market Head for Indonesia and Philippines of the Bank of Singapore — the private banking arm of OCBC, told TODAY that: “Bank of Singapore will not be paying the tariff difference of two per cent for clients in order to keep their funds in Singapore.”
“It is not appropriate for us to do so,” Mr Heng added. The other banks contacted did not comment by press time.
AGENCIES WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY RUMI HARDASMALANI
[Note also that the current interest rate paid by banks is very low. That is because the banks DO NOT NEED DEPOSITS. See online comment quote at the end of this post.]
Singapore banks may face outflows of billions of dollars if Indonesia floats a tax amnesty
August 18, 2015
by City Index
Singapore’s banks may see a huge outflow of funds to Indonesia if the latter offers a tax amnesty to its citizens to repatriate undisclosed wealth held abroad, says a Reuters report.
According to estimates by the Indonesian government, about $225 billion of such hot money is held with Singapore banks alone, with depositors attracted by the island republic’s low taxes, stable political environment and banks’ strict client privacy.
A large proportion of these funds are alleged to have been transferred out of Indonesia in the aftermath of the Suharto government, and the Indonesian government has been reportedly inspired by a similar amnesty scheme implemented by Italy that successfully recouped billions of euros illegally stashed away in Switzerland. The controversial Italian scheme allowed the repatriation of these monies against the payment of a small penalty.
Though the Indonesian government has not indicated when it would float the amnesty scheme, its authorities are apparently preoccupied with first setting up the legal framework for its implementation. Nevertheless, the mere prospect of the move is alarming enough for Singapore’s banks, with Indonesia said to account for 30 – 50% of their business.
[They provide no reference for this claim that Indonesia accounts for such a huge portion of Singapore's bank business. It may be true. But it would help if they provided some figures or some thing that can be checked. Or at least benchmarked. I suspect that the huge figure is the percentage of private banking business. Which is an important revenue stream for the bank, but NOT for the economy of Singapore.]
Already, the Singapore government’s pressure on banks to effect stricter checks on their clients has created operational difficulties. Required to examine the origin of their clients' money, the tax status of those funds, any political ramifications, and the reasons behind fund transfers, Singapore banks complain that it takes as much as three months to open a bank account, when previously it would be done in a week.
With secrecy laws in Switzerland under pressure, more and more money is said to be looking for refuge in Southeast Asia.
Last month, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it had issued nine warnings and reprimands in 2014 to financial entities for failing to properly implement anti-money laundering or counter-financing terrorism measures, according to Asia One. Six banks were slapped with penalties ranging from SG$1,000 to SG$700,000.
The situation is likely to get tighter once the global arrangements for automatic sharing of information between tax authorities takes effect from 2018.
However, according to Reuters, the Singapore finance ministry would insist on signing bilateral agreements with the concerned countries before sharing data provided the countries had a suitably robust legal framework to secure the confidentiality of the information and restrictions for its use strictly for tax purposes only.
Singapore’s banks may see a huge outflow of funds to Indonesia if the latter offers a tax amnesty to its citizens to repatriate undisclosed wealth held abroad, says a Reuters report.
According to estimates by the Indonesian government, about $225 billion of such hot money is held with Singapore banks alone, with depositors attracted by the island republic’s low taxes, stable political environment and banks’ strict client privacy.
A large proportion of these funds are alleged to have been transferred out of Indonesia in the aftermath of the Suharto government, and the Indonesian government has been reportedly inspired by a similar amnesty scheme implemented by Italy that successfully recouped billions of euros illegally stashed away in Switzerland. The controversial Italian scheme allowed the repatriation of these monies against the payment of a small penalty.
Though the Indonesian government has not indicated when it would float the amnesty scheme, its authorities are apparently preoccupied with first setting up the legal framework for its implementation. Nevertheless, the mere prospect of the move is alarming enough for Singapore’s banks, with Indonesia said to account for 30 – 50% of their business.
[They provide no reference for this claim that Indonesia accounts for such a huge portion of Singapore's bank business. It may be true. But it would help if they provided some figures or some thing that can be checked. Or at least benchmarked. I suspect that the huge figure is the percentage of private banking business. Which is an important revenue stream for the bank, but NOT for the economy of Singapore.]
Already, the Singapore government’s pressure on banks to effect stricter checks on their clients has created operational difficulties. Required to examine the origin of their clients' money, the tax status of those funds, any political ramifications, and the reasons behind fund transfers, Singapore banks complain that it takes as much as three months to open a bank account, when previously it would be done in a week.
With secrecy laws in Switzerland under pressure, more and more money is said to be looking for refuge in Southeast Asia.
Last month, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it had issued nine warnings and reprimands in 2014 to financial entities for failing to properly implement anti-money laundering or counter-financing terrorism measures, according to Asia One. Six banks were slapped with penalties ranging from SG$1,000 to SG$700,000.
The situation is likely to get tighter once the global arrangements for automatic sharing of information between tax authorities takes effect from 2018.
However, according to Reuters, the Singapore finance ministry would insist on signing bilateral agreements with the concerned countries before sharing data provided the countries had a suitably robust legal framework to secure the confidentiality of the information and restrictions for its use strictly for tax purposes only.
[Well, with criteria like this, obviously Singapore doesn't want to share any information with the corrupt, legally flexible, illogical, and highly volatile Indonesian. This is obviously an unfriendly act.
Next, a story of what MAS has been doing when there is at least prima facie evidence
of illegal or suspicious movement of money suspected of being stolen
from 1MDB. Banks have been censured, fined, or even shut down. MAS and Singapore is very strong in the promotion of
Singapore as financial hub and the integrity of the banking sector and the banking/finance laws. For this, it needs
to have a reputation for honesty, rule of law, and sound legal and business practice. We are wary of being seen as a seedy tax haven for
illegitimate wealth owners evading the law.
So, when Indonesia once again, repeats its same old urban legend about wealthy Indonesians parking their ill-gotten gains in Singapore, what does MAS or the SG govt do?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Why? We acted against our own banks (DBS) for the 1MDB why aren't we acting on the Indonesian's complaint?
Because
it is just an urban legend, a convenient (for Indonesia) conspiracy theory backed with no facts, no specifics, no
evidence. Nothing for the Singapore Govt to act on.]
MAS probes operations of DBS too over 1MDB
JUL 18, 2016
Straits Times
SINGAPORE • Singapore's central bank is scrutinising several banks, including UBS and DBS Group Holdings, to see if they broke anti-money laundering rules in handling transactions linked to scandal-hit Malaysian state fund 1MDB, three people with knowledge of the matter said.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is looking at several aspects of the banks' operations such as whether they were diligent enough in knowing who their customers were and what the source of their funds was, and whether they were particularly careful in screening politically exposed persons such as government officials, said banking and legal sources.
The probe could lead to fines and other penalties if lapses are found, said the sources, who declined to be identified. It is unclear which bank transactions are being examined.
Switzerland's Falcon Private Bank and Coutts International, owned by Geneva-based Union Bancaire Privee, are also among the banks under review, they said. UBS, Coutts and DBS, Singapore's top lender, declined to comment. When asked about the MAS review, a Zurich-based spokesman for Falcon said: "We have transparently shared our view and have nothing to add."
Falcon, which is owned by one of the world's leading sovereign wealth funds - Abu Dhabi's International Petroleum Investment Company - has previously said it is in contact with the MAS and cooperating with the authorities.
The MAS is in talks with several banks and will make an announcement on any punitive action against them after the review is completed, sources said. The full details are not known at this stage.
An MAS spokesman referred Reuters to its statement in March when it said that "as part of its investigations into possible money-laundering and other offences in Singapore, it has been conducting a thorough review of various transactions as well as fund flows through our banking system".
The latest probes follow the MAS' decision in May to close down the operations of Swiss private bank BSI in Singapore for serious breaches of anti-money laundering rules, the first time in 32 years it has taken such action against a bank.
The MAS said then that there had been gross misconduct by some of BSI's staff and poor management oversight of the bank's operations.
Though the MAS did not specifically say this related to 1MDB-related transactions, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority said then that BSI had committed serious breaches of money laundering regulations through business relationships and transactions linked to the scandal surrounding 1MDB.
The MAS also imposed a $13.3 million fine on the bank and, on the same day in May, the Swiss authorities said they would seize 95 million Swiss francs (S$130.2 million) of BSI's profits.
Malaysian companies and banks linked to 1MDB are at the centre of corruption and money laundering probes that have led investigators to look at transactions and financial relationships across the globe.
Probes are being conducted by the authorities in the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
REUTERS
[I waited to post this because I expected an official rebuttal. So here it is. However, TODAY is simply rehashing a lot of the earlier article to fill space. So a little repetitive, but included in full for transparency.]
Singapore 'not thwarting' Indonesia’s tax amnesty programme
July 23, 2016
JAKARTA — Singapore has not implemented any policies to thwart Indonesia’s tax amnesty programme, the Singapore Embassy in Indonesia said in a statement on Friday (July 22), refuting claims in Indonesian media accusing Singapore and its banks of coming up with a special scheme for Indonesians to leave their assets in the city state instead of repatriating them home.
“Singapore has not cut tax rates, nor changed our policies in response to Indonesia’s Tax Amnesty Programme,” said the Embassy’s statement.
The Indonesia’s Parliament last month passed a tax amnesty law aimed at drawing billions from wealthy Indonesians abroad and from tax evaders at home to help finance infrastructure and boost economic growth.
The law, which kicked in on Monday (July 18), grants special personal income tax rates to tax evaders who declare their past earnings between this month and next March. People and companies that declare their earnings and pay the special taxes will not be penalised for having failed to declare them before. Indonesia, a country of more than 250 million people, has only about 30 million registered taxpayers.
Under the amnesty, tax rates will range from two to 10 per cent, depending on how quickly an individual declares his assets and whether the capital is repatriated to Indonesia.
It was reported in Indonesian media that Singaporean banks have offered to pay the tariff difference — four per cent versus two per cent — between declaring the assets and not repatriating them to Indonesia between July and September.
Mr Yustinus Prastowo, the executive director of Centre for Indonesia Taxation Analysis, told the Jakarta Globe he had heard about the offer first-hand from Indonesian businessmen who have been approached personally by private agents.
“This type of incentive is legal and the Indonesian government must be ready to face it,” Mr Prastowo said.
Various Indonesian politicians have also weighed in on the issue, warning Singapore not to sabotage the programme.
“I want to remind Singapore to put away the policy and I hope that (reports of Singapore thwarting the programme) are not true, because it will very much obstruct the success of the Tax Amnesty Law”, said Indonesian House of Representatives Speaker Ade Komarudin.
“We’ve been friends for a long-time, don’t ruin it for your ego”, he said.
“Every country wants to survive,” Vice-President Jusuf Kalla told reporters on Thursday. “It (only) proves what people always say that most of the money stashed in Singapore comes from Indonesia.”
Minister of Finance Bambang Brodjonegoro said he is not afraid of the move by the Singaporean banks. “Just let it be, I am not afraid of Singapore which is just a small country like that,” he told Indonesian media on Tuesday. He had previously said the amnesty is expected to draw about 165 trillion rupiah (S$16.9 billion) for the government.
In its statement, the Singapore Embassy in Indonesia said that Singapore thrives on being a clean and trust financial centre.
“We have no interest in sheltering illicit tax monies. We subscribe to the internationally agreed standards, including for money laundering and for exchange of information,” it added.
“If there is any such case of suspected cross-border tax evasion, the Government concerned can approach Singapore – we have assisted and will continue to assist in line with the international standard.”
Mr Robin Heng, the Global Market Head for Indonesia and Philippines of the Bank of Singapore, the private banking arm of OCBC, told TODAY: “Bank of Singapore will not be paying the tariff difference of two per cent for clients in order to keep their funds in Singapore.”
“It is not appropriate for us to do so,” Mr Heng added.
Ms Tan Su Shan, co-head of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Private Banking Industry Group, said that tax amnesty programmes are generally a useful tool for individuals to regularise their tax affairs with their respective tax authorities.
“Indonesian individuals should seek proper tax advice and determine if and to what extent the tax amnesty programme applies to them, based on the details that have been announced,” she said in an email to TODAY.
“Banks in Singapore will provide the necessary support for their clients who participate in the programme.”
JAKARTA — Singapore has not implemented any policies to thwart Indonesia’s tax amnesty programme, the Singapore Embassy in Indonesia said in a statement on Friday (July 22), refuting claims in Indonesian media accusing Singapore and its banks of coming up with a special scheme for Indonesians to leave their assets in the city state instead of repatriating them home.
“Singapore has not cut tax rates, nor changed our policies in response to Indonesia’s Tax Amnesty Programme,” said the Embassy’s statement.
The Indonesia’s Parliament last month passed a tax amnesty law aimed at drawing billions from wealthy Indonesians abroad and from tax evaders at home to help finance infrastructure and boost economic growth.
The law, which kicked in on Monday (July 18), grants special personal income tax rates to tax evaders who declare their past earnings between this month and next March. People and companies that declare their earnings and pay the special taxes will not be penalised for having failed to declare them before. Indonesia, a country of more than 250 million people, has only about 30 million registered taxpayers.
Under the amnesty, tax rates will range from two to 10 per cent, depending on how quickly an individual declares his assets and whether the capital is repatriated to Indonesia.
It was reported in Indonesian media that Singaporean banks have offered to pay the tariff difference — four per cent versus two per cent — between declaring the assets and not repatriating them to Indonesia between July and September.
Mr Yustinus Prastowo, the executive director of Centre for Indonesia Taxation Analysis, told the Jakarta Globe he had heard about the offer first-hand from Indonesian businessmen who have been approached personally by private agents.
“This type of incentive is legal and the Indonesian government must be ready to face it,” Mr Prastowo said.
Various Indonesian politicians have also weighed in on the issue, warning Singapore not to sabotage the programme.
“I want to remind Singapore to put away the policy and I hope that (reports of Singapore thwarting the programme) are not true, because it will very much obstruct the success of the Tax Amnesty Law”, said Indonesian House of Representatives Speaker Ade Komarudin.
“We’ve been friends for a long-time, don’t ruin it for your ego”, he said.
“Every country wants to survive,” Vice-President Jusuf Kalla told reporters on Thursday. “It (only) proves what people always say that most of the money stashed in Singapore comes from Indonesia.”
Minister of Finance Bambang Brodjonegoro said he is not afraid of the move by the Singaporean banks. “Just let it be, I am not afraid of Singapore which is just a small country like that,” he told Indonesian media on Tuesday. He had previously said the amnesty is expected to draw about 165 trillion rupiah (S$16.9 billion) for the government.
In its statement, the Singapore Embassy in Indonesia said that Singapore thrives on being a clean and trust financial centre.
“We have no interest in sheltering illicit tax monies. We subscribe to the internationally agreed standards, including for money laundering and for exchange of information,” it added.
“If there is any such case of suspected cross-border tax evasion, the Government concerned can approach Singapore – we have assisted and will continue to assist in line with the international standard.”
Mr Robin Heng, the Global Market Head for Indonesia and Philippines of the Bank of Singapore, the private banking arm of OCBC, told TODAY: “Bank of Singapore will not be paying the tariff difference of two per cent for clients in order to keep their funds in Singapore.”
“It is not appropriate for us to do so,” Mr Heng added.
Ms Tan Su Shan, co-head of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Private Banking Industry Group, said that tax amnesty programmes are generally a useful tool for individuals to regularise their tax affairs with their respective tax authorities.
“Indonesian individuals should seek proper tax advice and determine if and to what extent the tax amnesty programme applies to them, based on the details that have been announced,” she said in an email to TODAY.
“Banks in Singapore will provide the necessary support for their clients who participate in the programme.”
AGENCIES WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY RUMI HARDASMALANI
[And here is an online comment to this story. Her point is valid, though she uses 4%, I believe the accusation is that SG banks were offering to pay the difference, which is 2%, but that is still over 4 years of losses by her estimation. Her main point, is that there is an abundance of cash/liquidity, so we are not hard-up to hang onto a few billions.
I would distance myself from her probably frustrated (and so less than fully thought out) final line. I would have wrote: "We stand by rules because that is what builds up our reputation (as rule-abiding, reliable, and honest) as a financial hub. And in this current situation, banks would be stupid to be this hard-up for extraneous cash/deposits."
Finally, the logic of the Indonesian persistent myth is absolutely faulty.
Say, they are right, and unknown numbers (or about 18,000 according to one partisan report), have escaped from Indonesia with their wealth, and deposited these money in Singapore banks. To the tune of about $100 billion (US$87b, again from the partisan report).
I understand that if 18,000 wealthy Indonesians evade tax, the Indonesian govt loses tax revenue. That is straightforward, and understandable.
But how is that supposed to benefit Singapore?
Say 18000 wealthy Indonesians bring $100b to Singapore and put it in Singapore Banks. What happens? The banks can make loans with those deposits. And then pay interest to the depositors.
BUT, this is not how wealthy people get wealthy and stay wealthy. They invest their money. In stocks, in business, in property. And they DON'T have to invest in SG stocks or SG businesses. From Singapore, they can invest in almost ANY market, in any part of the world. The wealthy Indonesians would be like wealthy nationals of any country. They would try to get the best investment in the money market.
The Indonesian Conspiracy Theory (ICT) would suggest that the wealthy Indonesians are... favouring SG, or SG businesses. It is implied in their accusation that SG growth is due to Wealthy Indonesians investing in Singapore. Why would the wealthy Indonesians favour Singapore? Wealthy investors will invest in promising businesses with the potential for higher returns. Wealthy investors do not need to come to Singapore to invest. And if they came to Singapore, they need not invest in Singapore businesses. They could invest in any other stocks and shares.
All these 18,000 wealthy Indonesians with $100b can do is to enrich the private bankers.
And even then... the average wealth of 18,000 persons with a total net worth of $100b is... $5.6m per person. Yes, I would be ecstatic if I have $5.6m. But even a condo (befitting an Indonesia Tax Evader) on Sentosa Cove area would costs more than $5m!
So if you hear about this vague ICT about how Singapore is harbouring and protecting Wealthy Indonesians, just roll your eyes and try to get away. If it is an enraged Indonesian ask him (or her)
1) How many Wealthy Indonesians and how much money have they brought to Singapore? Most likely, he will not be able to provide any facts or figures. If he provides the 18,000/$100b figure, point out that this averages out to about $5.6m per fugitive. Which is NOT very much at all.
2) How do wealthy Indonesians help Singapore grow? The ICT starts around 1998 at the Asian Financial Crisis, and the overthrow of President Suharto. These wealthy Indonesians are supposed to have fled the country with their vast wealth, to Singapore. And Singapore's growth since then is because of the influx of these money. If the influx of money is significant, we should have a lot of Indonesian-owned businesses in Singapore. Instead we just have Wisma Atria, and I am not even sure if that is Indonesian-owned. Or we will see a lot of property bought by Indonesian Tax evaders. So did 18,000 Indonesian Tax Evaders buy up 18,000 Good Class Bungalows (GCB) in Singapore? Maybe only half? 9,000? how about a quarter, 4,500? No? Because there are less than 3000 GCBs in Singapore?
3) [If they don't know the history of the ICT, and just want to focus on the current issue of SG "thwarting" their tax amnesty] Why would Singapore in the current environment of too much liquidity, low returns on investment want to stump up 2% for excess cash that we have no need of? Do they know what is the current savings rate for deposits in Singapore? Do they know what is the average return for banks in Singapore?
4) If an Indonesian wants to invest in Singapore, why does he need to move here? [The point is, evading taxes is separate from investing in Singapore. You can invest without evading taxes. And you don't need to be in Singapore. You can even open a Private banking account in Singapore without being in Singapore. But you need to satisfy the bank as to the origins of the funds.
5) If there are Indonesian Tax fugitives in Singapore, why haven't the Indonesian government requested for Singapore Govt to provide information and if applicable repatriate these tax evaders to Indonesia? Why haven't the Indonesian Govt acted specifically, but instead choose to make vague statements, in general terms, alleging unnamed people acting illicitly, but with no date, time, place, person, sums of money, etc. Why? Oh because they don't know! So, how do we know it is true?
It serves the Indonesian govt's interest to leave things vague. They make accusations, we ask for specifics, they don't follow up, so that they can make accusations again in the future. It serves their purpose to have a Singapore they can blame for their country's lack of progress. It serves their interest to have a "villain" to blame for their problems. It serves their ego to believe that Singapore's success is due to their countrymen's investment. It serves their view of themselves as "Abang" to believe that the little red dot's success is at their expense.
When you have everything you need to succeed, but you don't, you need a reason, an excuse for why you are such a dismal failure.
Winners make their success. Losers make their excuses.]
I am In banking and I havent done nor heard of such a tale. Does anybody know how hard it is to get a return of 4%? For banks who are barely earning a net interest margin of 0.5%, paying 4% is akin to 8 yrs of losses front ended ? Whoever believes this tale is a stupid fool. Singapore has no fear of multi billion dollar movements because the whole system is awash in cash - US, Japan and Europe all quantitative easing - you think we need to pay 4% to get cash to stay ? 1% is enough to attract what flowed out... We stand by rules because we are not hard up
Finally, the logic of the Indonesian persistent myth is absolutely faulty.
Say, they are right, and unknown numbers (or about 18,000 according to one partisan report), have escaped from Indonesia with their wealth, and deposited these money in Singapore banks. To the tune of about $100 billion (US$87b, again from the partisan report).
I understand that if 18,000 wealthy Indonesians evade tax, the Indonesian govt loses tax revenue. That is straightforward, and understandable.
But how is that supposed to benefit Singapore?
Say 18000 wealthy Indonesians bring $100b to Singapore and put it in Singapore Banks. What happens? The banks can make loans with those deposits. And then pay interest to the depositors.
BUT, this is not how wealthy people get wealthy and stay wealthy. They invest their money. In stocks, in business, in property. And they DON'T have to invest in SG stocks or SG businesses. From Singapore, they can invest in almost ANY market, in any part of the world. The wealthy Indonesians would be like wealthy nationals of any country. They would try to get the best investment in the money market.
The Indonesian Conspiracy Theory (ICT) would suggest that the wealthy Indonesians are... favouring SG, or SG businesses. It is implied in their accusation that SG growth is due to Wealthy Indonesians investing in Singapore. Why would the wealthy Indonesians favour Singapore? Wealthy investors will invest in promising businesses with the potential for higher returns. Wealthy investors do not need to come to Singapore to invest. And if they came to Singapore, they need not invest in Singapore businesses. They could invest in any other stocks and shares.
All these 18,000 wealthy Indonesians with $100b can do is to enrich the private bankers.
And even then... the average wealth of 18,000 persons with a total net worth of $100b is... $5.6m per person. Yes, I would be ecstatic if I have $5.6m. But even a condo (befitting an Indonesia Tax Evader) on Sentosa Cove area would costs more than $5m!
So if you hear about this vague ICT about how Singapore is harbouring and protecting Wealthy Indonesians, just roll your eyes and try to get away. If it is an enraged Indonesian ask him (or her)
1) How many Wealthy Indonesians and how much money have they brought to Singapore? Most likely, he will not be able to provide any facts or figures. If he provides the 18,000/$100b figure, point out that this averages out to about $5.6m per fugitive. Which is NOT very much at all.
2) How do wealthy Indonesians help Singapore grow? The ICT starts around 1998 at the Asian Financial Crisis, and the overthrow of President Suharto. These wealthy Indonesians are supposed to have fled the country with their vast wealth, to Singapore. And Singapore's growth since then is because of the influx of these money. If the influx of money is significant, we should have a lot of Indonesian-owned businesses in Singapore. Instead we just have Wisma Atria, and I am not even sure if that is Indonesian-owned. Or we will see a lot of property bought by Indonesian Tax evaders. So did 18,000 Indonesian Tax Evaders buy up 18,000 Good Class Bungalows (GCB) in Singapore? Maybe only half? 9,000? how about a quarter, 4,500? No? Because there are less than 3000 GCBs in Singapore?
3) [If they don't know the history of the ICT, and just want to focus on the current issue of SG "thwarting" their tax amnesty] Why would Singapore in the current environment of too much liquidity, low returns on investment want to stump up 2% for excess cash that we have no need of? Do they know what is the current savings rate for deposits in Singapore? Do they know what is the average return for banks in Singapore?
4) If an Indonesian wants to invest in Singapore, why does he need to move here? [The point is, evading taxes is separate from investing in Singapore. You can invest without evading taxes. And you don't need to be in Singapore. You can even open a Private banking account in Singapore without being in Singapore. But you need to satisfy the bank as to the origins of the funds.
5) If there are Indonesian Tax fugitives in Singapore, why haven't the Indonesian government requested for Singapore Govt to provide information and if applicable repatriate these tax evaders to Indonesia? Why haven't the Indonesian Govt acted specifically, but instead choose to make vague statements, in general terms, alleging unnamed people acting illicitly, but with no date, time, place, person, sums of money, etc. Why? Oh because they don't know! So, how do we know it is true?
It serves the Indonesian govt's interest to leave things vague. They make accusations, we ask for specifics, they don't follow up, so that they can make accusations again in the future. It serves their purpose to have a Singapore they can blame for their country's lack of progress. It serves their interest to have a "villain" to blame for their problems. It serves their ego to believe that Singapore's success is due to their countrymen's investment. It serves their view of themselves as "Abang" to believe that the little red dot's success is at their expense.
When you have everything you need to succeed, but you don't, you need a reason, an excuse for why you are such a dismal failure.
Winners make their success. Losers make their excuses.]
No comments:
Post a Comment