Cost of living in Singapore

Forum: Costly renovations not the only way to attract crowds​

Dec 10, 2024

I am concerned about the ongoing and seemingly endless renovations and rebuilding in Singapore, ranging from shopping malls to office buildings to even hawker centres.

Development and refurbishment are important for maintaining competitiveness, but there are other factors to be considered.

These renovations trigger spiralling of costs.

As landlords seek to recoup renovation and rebuilding expenses, the prices for retail spaces rise, ultimately driving up the cost of goods and services.

Many would have noticed how often food centres and foodcourts are renovated.

A recent example is Bukit Timah Market & Food Centre, which is making way for a new development.

This centre had undergone various upgrading and cleaning, and its condition was still acceptable for years to come. I understand from stallholders that they will charge much higher prices when they start operating at the new development.


The high prices make shopping and dining in Singapore less appealing to locals, tourists and expatriates alike. Huge numbers of Singaporeans spend their weekends in Johor Bahru for this reason.

For Singapore to remain an attractive destination for business and leisure, it is essential that the retail and business environments be sustainable. Constant renovation and rebuilding are not environmentally friendly. They also do not contribute to a sense of belonging.

Malls should be encouraged to find innovative ways to attract crowds and not rely on renovation alone since it ultimately hurts the pockets of consumers, who will be driven online and to seek out alternative dining places.

I urge the authorities to set up a watchdog to consider introducing regulations on the frequency and scale of renovation of retail spaces.

A more balanced approach could help preserve the vibrancy of Singapore’s retail scene without compromising sustainability, affordability and the overall shopping experience.

Goh Sio Yean

 
We don't need to look far to see the reasons behind the spiralling cost of living in S'pore

Greedy.jpg
 

How some people are managing their spending even as inflation eases in S’pore​

ctinflation/ST20241217_202400800330/Ng Sor Luan/Profile of a retired couple who do not wish to be photographed with their faces shown. For story o nhow has inflation affected ordinary people living in Singapore for 12 months since Sept 1, 2023. Key indicators show that hawker food (+2.3%), accommodation (+1.9%), utilities (5.2%), polyclinics (2.3%), and bus/train fares (4.9%) have all risen.

The rising prices of groceries have been a pain point for retirees Mr and Mrs Chan, with trying to eat healthy costing them significantly more now than a year ago.ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN

Colin Tan
Dec 21, 2024

SINGAPORE – Inflation has been easing, but that has not stopped some people from finding ways to better manage their expenses as prices remain higher than before.

Core inflation fell to 2.1 per cent in October, down from 2.8 per cent in September.

Overall inflation, which includes accommodation and private transport, was down to 1.4 per cent, from 2 per cent a month ago.

The good news is, inflation in Singapore is seen easing further in 2025, in line with global trends.

However, what the official data shows could differ from the price impact that people are experiencing in their daily lives.

This is because one’s experience is coloured by his or her spending habits, income level, and psychological perception of price changes.

The consumer price index (CPI), in contrast, is a broad measure of inflation that tracks price changes of a fixed basket of goods and services commonly purchased by households.

In a nod to Singaporeans’ worries about the cost of living, the Government has rolled out major support packages over the last few years, with more help on the way in the coming months, such as another tranche of CDC vouchers in January 2025.

The Straits Times takes a look at how some people are coping with expenses.

Housewife makes the most of her grocery budget​

Housewife Germaine Teo has found it challenging in the past 12 months to stick to her usual grocery budget for her family of five.

The 45-year-old, who has three children – a 17-year-old daughter and two sons aged 14 and 12 – stopped working in 2012 after her youngest was born, leaving her husband, who is also 45, as the sole breadwinner.

The arrangement worked well for the family, who live in a five-room Housing Board flat, as her husband rose up the corporate ladder to eventually become a director in an engineering company.

But since the pandemic, rising prices and job uncertainty have thrown a spanner in the works.

“The $150 weekly grocery budget no longer bought the same amount of food it used to, and we had to make some rather draconian changes,” said Ms Teo, adding that the budget has increased to $200 a week now.

This includes switching from fresh chicken or fish at the supermarket to the frozen versions from online platform Redmart.

Ms Teo also opted for local vegetables, such as spinach and long beans, instead of pricier Australian broccoli.

ST20241212_202470600386/ctinflation/Colin Tan/Jason QuahHousewife Germaine Teo poses for a photo at Alexandra Road on Dec 12, 2024. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH

Housewife Germaine Teo has found it a challenge in the past 12 months to stick to her usual grocery budget for her family of five.ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH
She buys supermarket house brands, instead of reaching for the more upmarket brands, and chooses UHT milk over fresh milk.

“Pre-Covid-19, we could still go out for restaurant meals without too much thought, but now we can’t do that as frequently – especially with the same family of five eating more as the kids grow,” she noted.

“We also seldom order drinks and bring our own water bottles instead.”

The family eats more home-cooked meals now, and Ms Teo has reduced the number of dishes per meal to save money.

“We went from three – a soup, a meat dish and a vegetable dish – to more economical one-dish meals. Thankfully, my husband and kids aren’t too fussy,” she said.

Examples of such one-dish meals include pasta, fried rice, oyako-don, which is a Japanese chicken and egg rice bowl, and minced pork noodles with vegetables.

The change also meant smaller portions all around, she said.

And while she used to enjoy getting her favourite cuppa – teh-c siu dai (tea with less sugar) – from a local chain, she stopped doing so when the price rose to $2.90 a cup.

“I make my own now and it costs me 70 cents,” she said.

On the transportation front, the family decided to do without a car eight years ago, so they could channel the money towards paying for the children’s enrichment classes and family holidays.

But getting around Singapore via private-hire services such as Grab became too much of a luxury when the five of them could no longer squeeze into one car.

Separately, data from the Department of Statistics showed that train and bus fares climbed 7 per cent for the 12 months to October, unchanged from September.

Meanwhile, the fund for family vacations did not completely pan out.

Ms Teo needed more money for her children’s sports activities and equipment, while the cost of flying five people became prohibitive as air ticket prices rose.

This meant that the same amount budgeted for their annual holidays did not go as far as she expected, and options became more limited.

“We just went to Shanghai at the end of November as a family,” she said.

Usually, the family stay at a short-stay home rather than a hotel when travelling abroad, but accommodation in the Chinese city was relatively affordable, so they chose to indulge in a four-star hotel that cost just over $100 a night.

“While we were somewhat coping with the inflation caused by the after-effects of the pandemic, we were hit when GST went up,” Ms Teo said.

The goods and services tax was raised from 7 per cent to 8 per cent in 2023, and then to 9 per cent in 2024.

Ms Teo shared a tip for parents: When the children ask for special treats, wait for a sale or online deals.

Looking ahead, she thinks she may go back to full-time work to better cope with unexpected price hikes in the coming years.

“Even though we thought that we had budgeted prudently as a single-income family, the price increases have thrown our calculations off kilter.

“We have to relook our future plans again, both as a family with the kids’ education in mind, and as a couple who need to plan for retirement,” she said.

Retiree couple opted to extend COE of their car
For retirees, Mr and Mrs Chan, who are 65 and 60 years old respectively, their biggest expenditure over the past 12 months is the topping up of their car’s certificate of entitlement (COE) in June 2024.

The couple, who declined to reveal their full names, had paid $124,000 for the four-year-old second-hand continental car in 2018.

So when the COE was about to expire, the Chans wrestled with the decision on whether to get a new car or extend the life of the existing one.

The choice facing them was a small new car that would have cost $170,000, or $99,000 for the COE extension.

In the end, they opted for what seemed like the cheaper solution.

However, they may yet regret the decision as the road tax for cars 10 years and older will rise by an additional 10 per cent every year, and the cost of repairs will also increase.

But the couple felt that they needed a car, as Mrs Chan’s parents – who are in their mid-90s – have mobility issues.

“At their age, public transportation isn’t an option as it presents a very real danger, given how fragile the old folks are,” said Mr Chan.

“We really need the car because of their numerous medical appointments.”

The rising prices of groceries have also been a pain point, and trying to eat healthily is costing the couple significantly more now than a year ago.

“Everything has gone up. An example is oranges, which would have cost less than $5 for three before, but have now risen to $5 or $6,” said Mr Chan.

“I’ve had to give up my favourite cheese when it rose past $8 for 10 slices, up from the $5 it used to cost,” said his wife.

ctinflation/ST20241217_202400800330/Ng Sor Luan/Profile of a retired couple who do not wish to be photographed with their faces shown. For story o nhow has inflation affected ordinary people living in Singapore for 12 months since Sept 1, 2023. Key indicators show that hawker food (+2.3%), accommodation (+1.9%), utilities (5.2%), polyclinics (2.3%), and bus/train fares (4.9%) have all risen.

For retirees Mr and Mrs Chan, the biggest item they have had to spend on over the past 12 months is topping up the COE for their car in June 2024.ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN
The Chans do not eat out often. Mrs Chan cooks frequently, adding: “My menu planning depends very much on what’s on sale.”

They have two adult children in their 30s living with them in a condominium that the Chans bought more than 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, the couple’s overseas trips also double as shopping trips because of the strong Singapore dollar.

As the frequency of these trips varies between three months and a year, they have had to adjust their buying patterns.

“I now buy a whole year’s supply of various items – from clothes to cosmetics, like sunblock, as well as less perishable food such as coffee beans from Japan or South Korea,” said Mrs Chan.

As the couple rely on passive income from their investments and savings, they are no longer brand-conscious. Said Mrs Chan: “We have no brand loyalty any more, we buy things only if they’re on discount.”

The Chans describe themselves as being price-sensitive in recent years.

For Christmas, the family put up an eight-year-old artificial Christmas tree, but the ornaments are from Japanese discount chain Daiso, costing a few dollars each.

“Previously, I had no qualms leaving the fairy lights on all day, but now we turn them on only if we’re around and shut them off when we leave the room,” Mrs Chan said.

The same goes for the air-conditioner. “We used to sleep through the night with the air-conditioner on. Now, we cool the room down for a few hours and then turn it off when we go to bed,” she said.

Utilities and fuels have risen in price by 4.1 per cent over the last 12 months to October, down from 6.7 per cent in September, according to CPI data.

Spending wisely while studying in S’pore​

Ms Alice Linh, a Vietnamese national, is a second-year social science undergraduate reading politics, economics and law at the Singapore Management University.

In her first year of study, the 21-year-old’s parents gave her a monthly allowance of $1,400 but this year, they raised it to $2,000.

Back home, her parents, who are in their 50s, run a small business and live with Ms Linh’s two elder siblings in their mid-20s.

ST20241211_202487800555/ctinflation/Colin Tan/Jason QuahSMU student Alice Linh pictured at SMU on Dec 11, 2024. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH

Ms Alice Linh, a Vietnamese national, is a second-year social science undergraduate reading politics, economics and law at the Singapore Management University.ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH
Food accounts for the lion’s share, or about 60 per cent, of the budget. While Ms Linh typically eats hawker food, she does treat herself to something special, like steak, once in a while.

Hawker food prices increased 2.9 per cent for the 12 months to October, unchanged from the previous month, official data showed.

One of the clearest indicators of inflation is tied to Ms Linh’s penchant for iced lemon tea, which she drinks regularly.

“When I first came to Singapore in 2023, a cup of iced lemon tea near my home cost me about $1.40, but I sat up and took notice when it hit $1.80.”

Ms Linh decided to cut down the number of meals she has from three a day to two to save money.

“I have a really big and heavy brunch to last me all the way till dinner, which tends to be much lighter. I’ve been doing this for some time, even though I know it isn’t very healthy.”

She admitted that she lost weight as a result of this regimen in 2023, spending about $15 a day on food.

An internship stint in December at a non-governmental organisation led her to revert to three meals a day, spending around $20 to $35 daily on food – largely because she needed a higher energy level to get through the day, she said.

Rent is the next biggest item, taking up a further 30 per cent of her allowance.

Ms Linh has been fortunate in that her landlord is her father’s friend.

“I am really grateful that he hasn’t hiked the rental of my room at his HDB flat since I moved here,” she said.

Transport expenditure has roughly stayed the same in the past two years because she is still a student and pays less than $50 for a concession pass for bus and train trips.

According to the broader CPI data, accommodation costs rose 2.5 per cent over the last 12 months to October, down from 2.7 per cent in September.

Ms Linh goes back to Vietnam every three or four months and air ticket prices could vary widely, depending on the travel period. This is a separate expense, not paid for out of her monthly allowance.

In 2025, she hopes to supplement her allowance by applying to become a teaching assistant.

“I think I can make about $600 in four to five months per class per semester,” she said.
 

Forum: A fairer COE system must distinguish profit from need​

Jun 19, 2025

I refer to the article “Acting Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow on COE system, private-hire cars and other transport issues”, (June 17). The minister suggested it’s more efficient to allocate certificates of entitlement (COE) to private-hire cars since they serve more people.

While this may sound sensible, it overlooks the constraints faced by individual buyers such as the total debt servicing ratio and monthly budgets. Private-hire companies can afford higher COE prices and pass on the cost to drivers through rental fees.

The rise of private-hire cars has also added to overall demand. When COEs are treated as business assets, the system risks being distorted, disadvantaging regular families who rely on a car for daily commuting and caregiving – not for profit.


If the Government sees private-hire cars as delivering a public good, then it should consider creating a separate COE category for them. Allowing them to compete in the same pool as individual buyers prices out the average household.

A fair COE system should ensure users bear the true cost of ownership, encourage responsible usage and prevent commercial entities from distorting bids.

Chen Tian Qi
 
AI Overview
1750301023542.png

1750301023546.png

+7

Yes, Singapore utilizes a debt program called SINGA (Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act) to finance nationally significant infrastructure projects. This program allows the government to raise loans through the issuance of Singapore Government Securities (Infrastructure). These securities are specifically used to fund large-scale, long-term infrastructure developments that are crucial for Singapore's future.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • SINGA and SGS (Infrastructure):
    The SINGA program falls under the purview of the Ministry of Finance and enables the issuance of Singapore Government Securities (Infrastructure). These bonds are issued to finance major infrastructure projects like transportation, energy, and other public works that are deemed critical for Singapore's long-term development.

  • Debt-for-Infrastructure:
    Instead of using current revenue or accumulated reserves for these projects, Singapore chooses to borrow funds through the SINGA program, ensuring that the infrastructure is funded while maintaining a balanced budget over each term of office. This strategy allows Singapore to invest in its future without impacting its financial stability.

  • No Net Debt:
    While Singapore issues debt to fund infrastructure, it also generates revenue from its reserves and investments. These revenues, along with the assets held by the government, exceed the value of its liabilities, resulting in a situation where Singapore has no net debt.

  • Long-Term Focus:
    This approach highlights Singapore's long-term vision for sustainable development, ensuring that investments in infrastructure are made to support the nation's growth and well-being for years to come.
 
the higher the cost of living, the lower your standard of living. Need any more clearer than that?
 
the higher the cost of living, the lower your standard of living. Need any more clearer than that?
Goh Chok Tong got the 2 mixed up when he promised S'poreans a Swiss Standard of Living because we only got the Swiss Cost of Living.
 

MRT, bus fares for adults to go up by 10 cents from Dec 28​

These fare changes are part of the Public Transport Council‘s yearly fare adjustment exercise in 2024.

The fare changes are part of the Public Transport Council‘s yearly fare adjustment exercise in 2024.ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
Esther Loi
Dec 27, 2024

SINGAPORE – Adult passengers will need to pay 10 cents more for each train and bus ride from Dec 28, when a public transport fare hike of 6 per cent kicks in.

Meanwhile, seniors, students, people with disabilities and low-wage workers enjoying concessionary fares will need to pay four cents more for each journey.

These increases apply if passengers pay by debit, credit or fare cards.


There will be no increase for fares paid in cash on buses. The cost of adult monthly travel passes and monthly concession passes will remain unchanged too.

The fare changes are part of the Public Transport Council’s (PTC) yearly fare adjustment exercise in 2024, and were previously announced on Sept 9.

PTC, which regulates fares and ticket payment services, had said that the 2024 adjustment of 6 per cent was driven by the growth in core inflation and wages in 2023.

But the adjustment was moderated partially by a drop in energy prices from their peak in 2022.

The council added that as the cost of living remains a concern for Singaporeans, it decided to grant the 6 per cent hike to “cushion commuters from the full fare increase”.

With the 6 per cent increase being less than a third of the maximum allowable increase of 18.9 per cent for 2024, the remaining increase of 12.9 per cent will be rolled over to future fare review exercises.


To soften the blow of the fare increase, the Ministry of Transport and the People’s Association said the Government will provide public transport vouchers worth $60 each to lower-income resident households with a monthly income of up to $1,800 per person.

Students entering their next phase of education or the workforce will be able to continue paying concessionary fares on public buses and trains for four months after their studies. This is expected to benefit about 75,000 students every year, according to PTC.
 

Costlier Grab rides? Expect this trend to continue​

Jianggan Li
Ride-hailing platforms like Grab differ fundamentally from traditional taxi companies.


Ride-hailing platforms like Grab differ fundamentally from traditional taxi companies. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO FILE
Jan 09, 2025

I recently joined the popular local podcast The Daily Ketchup as a guest to discuss, among other things, the issue of costs of platform services many of us use on a daily basis: ride hailing and food delivery.

In 2025, getting a ride in Singapore will be more expensive. Grab, Gojek, Tada and CDG Zig had announced that they would be increasing their prices from Jan 1, 2025. One key driver of this shift is Singapore’s upcoming Platform Workers Act. Momentum Works expects the Act to add at least $493 million in Central Provident Fund (CPF) costs for ride-hailing and food delivery platforms over five years; and the platforms are likely going to pass these costs on to consumers.

Let’s break down how the Platform Workers Act will exactly impact the economics of your typical ride-hailing trip by using an example.


Assume that an on-demand ride costs you $20, and the platform charges 20 per cent commission. This means the platform operator will get $4 in net revenue, while the driver takes home $16.

By 2029, when the Platform Workers Act is fully implemented, additional costs such as CPF contributions ($1.36 per ride) and insurance (20 cents per ride) will add approximately $1.60 per ride to the industry’s cost structure.

While the Government has introduced a temporary support scheme from 2025 to 2029 to help offset drivers’ CPF contributions during the transition, drivers’ take-home pay will inevitably decrease as part of their income is allocated to CPF savings. At the same time, the industry’s cost structure will rise due to these additional requirements.

Although drivers must adjust to a lower take-home pay, the bigger question remains: Who will absorb the increased cost to the industry?


The question is important because, among an average of 630,000 rides that took place in the city every day in October 2024, some 562,000 or 89 per cent were done through ride-hailing.

It is worthwhile, then, to take a look at the current state of the ride-hailing industry – from the point of view of both drivers and commuters – and see how the changes will affect it.

The three co-hosts of the podcast all shared the same perspective: Whenever they travel to other developed countries, Japan, Europe or the US, the cost of a taxi or private-hire car ride is always much more expensive compared with Singapore. “Are we too spoiled? ” one asked during the podcast.

It is an interesting topic and many around me have strong opinions on it. Regulations, market competition and, of course, urban topography, all have a role to play in this.

In most markets, the taxi industry is not exactly a free market where price is determined by supply and demand. People in Singapore should be familiar with this constant debate on whether taxi/ride-hailing should be considered a form of public transport.

However, things become more interesting when you compare the net income – that is, earnings after expenses such as platform commissions, vehicle rent and fuel – of taxi and ride-hailing drivers in different developed markets.

Drivers in Singapore typically actually earn very competitive net income compared with their peers in New York (before tips), London and Paris, cities with comparable GDP per capita to Singapore.

In fact, local taxi drivers actually earn more than their counterparts in Tokyo, despite many of our perceptions about Tokyo’s expensive rides. Which means, after all the episodic frustrations many of us feel, Singapore is doing a pretty efficient job in managing the ride-hailing ecosystem.

No wonder a friend, who runs a large chain of bubble tea joints in Singapore, told me recently about a big challenge for his expansion: franchisees do not earn much more compared with driving for Grab, which also offers flexible hours and the option of no upfront capital investment. So why should they bother becoming a franchisee?

While ride-hailing drivers can earn a decent income, there is one caveat. Until now they did not have social security, which meant that they could not afford to take rest or leave their work. But change is afoot and it could alter the dynamics of the ride-hailing sector.

Ride-hailing platforms like Grab differ fundamentally from traditional taxi companies. Taxi firms have long operated within regulated frameworks with fixed fare structures and predictable cost bases. They typically own or lease their vehicles, employ drivers, and spread costs such as insurance, maintenance, and benefits across a stable fleet. They often incorporate costs like driver benefits into pricing.

In contrast, ride-hailing platforms are asset-light, serving as intermediaries without owning cars or directly employing drivers. This model allows flexibility and scalability and also shifts vehicle and maintenance costs to independent drivers. But this makes the platforms heavily reliant on their gig workforce.

When ride-hailing first started back in 2013, consumers in Singapore enjoyed hefty promotions and also the luxury of having many more drivers available to ferry them around. Ride-hailing platforms and their investors have relied on a combination of subsidies and promotional discounts to keep rides cheap for consumers. This strategy allowed them to rapidly scale their operations and fend off competition.

Traditional taxis have been in retreat. In December 2016, there were more than 27,000 taxis in Singapore; that number was reduced to about 13,000 in October 2024. And as mentioned above, almost 90 per cent of the daily point-to-point trips in Singapore are done through ride-hailing.

But this era of low fares could not have lasted forever and the prices have gradually increased over the years. Now you often hear people in Singapore complaining about the high cost of rides. One must bear in mind that companies like Grab and Gojek operate on very thin margins, and are structured to minimise upfront costs while maximising scalability.

Ride-hailing platforms, which gained an edge through dynamic pricing and regulatory bypasses, now face the challenge of maintaining competitiveness as regulations, like the Platform Workers Act in Singapore, aim to level the playing field.

Back to the question raised above – who will absorb the additional costs?

It would defeat the purpose of the legislation for the drivers to bear this additional cost. Their take-home pay reduces, but they get additional safety net in CPF.

It then becomes a question of whether the consumer or the platform will bear the cost. Using the same example mentioned earlier (of $1.60 additional cost over a $20 ride), there will either be an 8 per cent fare increase (from $20 to $21.60) to the consumer, or the platform will see a 40 per cent reduction in net revenue (from $4 to $2.40).

Platforms rely on a large scale of orders at thin margins to be viable – beyond that the society will vote with their feet, and below that they will run an operational loss. With investors demanding clearer paths to sustained profitability, passing additional costs to consumers becomes the most viable option.

So the additional costs are unlikely to be absorbed by the platforms for a simple reason: their financials cannot sustain it. A $4 net revenue in the above example, after payment, technology, marketing, overhead and other costs, will translate into very thin margins. Cutting that by almost half will likely make the platforms’ economics unsustainable.

While the Platform Workers Act will improve the safety net for drivers, it fundamentally disrupts the asset-light nature of the ride-hailing model.

The industry will have to tread the fine line between raising prices enough to stay sustainable, but not so much as to chase away passengers. Additionally, rising fares could spur innovation in other areas of mobility. From electric vehicles to autonomous ride-sharing solutions, companies may explore new models to offset costs and attract consumers. Governments, too, could play a role by incentivising sustainable transportation options or subsidising emerging technologies.

As we head into 2025, the cost of a ride may become a litmus test for how we are balancing convenience and cost of living in our daily lives.

As my younger peers mentioned in the aforementioned podcast, if I am already paying $20 for a ride-hailing option after a concert at midnight, I might be willing to pay a bit more for the convenience – instead of hunting for other ways to get home.
 

Costlier Grab rides? Expect this trend to continue​

Jianggan Li
Ride-hailing platforms like Grab differ fundamentally from traditional taxi companies.


Ride-hailing platforms like Grab differ fundamentally from traditional taxi companies. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO FILE
Jan 09, 2025

I recently joined the popular local podcast The Daily Ketchup as a guest to discuss, among other things, the issue of costs of platform services many of us use on a daily basis: ride hailing and food delivery.

In 2025, getting a ride in Singapore will be more expensive. Grab, Gojek, Tada and CDG Zig had announced that they would be increasing their prices from Jan 1, 2025. One key driver of this shift is Singapore’s upcoming Platform Workers Act. Momentum Works expects the Act to add at least $493 million in Central Provident Fund (CPF) costs for ride-hailing and food delivery platforms over five years; and the platforms are likely going to pass these costs on to consumers.

Let’s break down how the Platform Workers Act will exactly impact the economics of your typical ride-hailing trip by using an example.


Assume that an on-demand ride costs you $20, and the platform charges 20 per cent commission. This means the platform operator will get $4 in net revenue, while the driver takes home $16.

By 2029, when the Platform Workers Act is fully implemented, additional costs such as CPF contributions ($1.36 per ride) and insurance (20 cents per ride) will add approximately $1.60 per ride to the industry’s cost structure.

While the Government has introduced a temporary support scheme from 2025 to 2029 to help offset drivers’ CPF contributions during the transition, drivers’ take-home pay will inevitably decrease as part of their income is allocated to CPF savings. At the same time, the industry’s cost structure will rise due to these additional requirements.

Although drivers must adjust to a lower take-home pay, the bigger question remains: Who will absorb the increased cost to the industry?


The question is important because, among an average of 630,000 rides that took place in the city every day in October 2024, some 562,000 or 89 per cent were done through ride-hailing.

It is worthwhile, then, to take a look at the current state of the ride-hailing industry – from the point of view of both drivers and commuters – and see how the changes will affect it.

The three co-hosts of the podcast all shared the same perspective: Whenever they travel to other developed countries, Japan, Europe or the US, the cost of a taxi or private-hire car ride is always much more expensive compared with Singapore. “Are we too spoiled? ” one asked during the podcast.

It is an interesting topic and many around me have strong opinions on it. Regulations, market competition and, of course, urban topography, all have a role to play in this.

In most markets, the taxi industry is not exactly a free market where price is determined by supply and demand. People in Singapore should be familiar with this constant debate on whether taxi/ride-hailing should be considered a form of public transport.

However, things become more interesting when you compare the net income – that is, earnings after expenses such as platform commissions, vehicle rent and fuel – of taxi and ride-hailing drivers in different developed markets.

Drivers in Singapore typically actually earn very competitive net income compared with their peers in New York (before tips), London and Paris, cities with comparable GDP per capita to Singapore.

In fact, local taxi drivers actually earn more than their counterparts in Tokyo, despite many of our perceptions about Tokyo’s expensive rides. Which means, after all the episodic frustrations many of us feel, Singapore is doing a pretty efficient job in managing the ride-hailing ecosystem.

No wonder a friend, who runs a large chain of bubble tea joints in Singapore, told me recently about a big challenge for his expansion: franchisees do not earn much more compared with driving for Grab, which also offers flexible hours and the option of no upfront capital investment. So why should they bother becoming a franchisee?

While ride-hailing drivers can earn a decent income, there is one caveat. Until now they did not have social security, which meant that they could not afford to take rest or leave their work. But change is afoot and it could alter the dynamics of the ride-hailing sector.

Ride-hailing platforms like Grab differ fundamentally from traditional taxi companies. Taxi firms have long operated within regulated frameworks with fixed fare structures and predictable cost bases. They typically own or lease their vehicles, employ drivers, and spread costs such as insurance, maintenance, and benefits across a stable fleet. They often incorporate costs like driver benefits into pricing.

In contrast, ride-hailing platforms are asset-light, serving as intermediaries without owning cars or directly employing drivers. This model allows flexibility and scalability and also shifts vehicle and maintenance costs to independent drivers. But this makes the platforms heavily reliant on their gig workforce.

When ride-hailing first started back in 2013, consumers in Singapore enjoyed hefty promotions and also the luxury of having many more drivers available to ferry them around. Ride-hailing platforms and their investors have relied on a combination of subsidies and promotional discounts to keep rides cheap for consumers. This strategy allowed them to rapidly scale their operations and fend off competition.

Traditional taxis have been in retreat. In December 2016, there were more than 27,000 taxis in Singapore; that number was reduced to about 13,000 in October 2024. And as mentioned above, almost 90 per cent of the daily point-to-point trips in Singapore are done through ride-hailing.

But this era of low fares could not have lasted forever and the prices have gradually increased over the years. Now you often hear people in Singapore complaining about the high cost of rides. One must bear in mind that companies like Grab and Gojek operate on very thin margins, and are structured to minimise upfront costs while maximising scalability.

Ride-hailing platforms, which gained an edge through dynamic pricing and regulatory bypasses, now face the challenge of maintaining competitiveness as regulations, like the Platform Workers Act in Singapore, aim to level the playing field.

Back to the question raised above – who will absorb the additional costs?

It would defeat the purpose of the legislation for the drivers to bear this additional cost. Their take-home pay reduces, but they get additional safety net in CPF.

It then becomes a question of whether the consumer or the platform will bear the cost. Using the same example mentioned earlier (of $1.60 additional cost over a $20 ride), there will either be an 8 per cent fare increase (from $20 to $21.60) to the consumer, or the platform will see a 40 per cent reduction in net revenue (from $4 to $2.40).

Platforms rely on a large scale of orders at thin margins to be viable – beyond that the society will vote with their feet, and below that they will run an operational loss. With investors demanding clearer paths to sustained profitability, passing additional costs to consumers becomes the most viable option.

So the additional costs are unlikely to be absorbed by the platforms for a simple reason: their financials cannot sustain it. A $4 net revenue in the above example, after payment, technology, marketing, overhead and other costs, will translate into very thin margins. Cutting that by almost half will likely make the platforms’ economics unsustainable.

While the Platform Workers Act will improve the safety net for drivers, it fundamentally disrupts the asset-light nature of the ride-hailing model.

The industry will have to tread the fine line between raising prices enough to stay sustainable, but not so much as to chase away passengers. Additionally, rising fares could spur innovation in other areas of mobility. From electric vehicles to autonomous ride-sharing solutions, companies may explore new models to offset costs and attract consumers. Governments, too, could play a role by incentivising sustainable transportation options or subsidising emerging technologies.

As we head into 2025, the cost of a ride may become a litmus test for how we are balancing convenience and cost of living in our daily lives.

As my younger peers mentioned in the aforementioned podcast, if I am already paying $20 for a ride-hailing option after a concert at midnight, I might be willing to pay a bit more for the convenience – instead of hunting for other ways to get home.
Need to support SG World class COE price
 
Back
Top