- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 26,813
- Points
- 113
Netizens criticise Ho Ching for downplaying inequality and framing wealth taxes as ineffective in Singapore
Netizens challenged Ho Ching after she suggesting that wealth taxes broadly tend to fail because wealthy individuals may leave or shift assets elsewhere, saying this framing oversimplifies policy trade-offs and inequality concerns in Singapore and beyond.The Online Citizen
13 Feb 2026
theonlinecitizen.com
SINGAPORE: Netizens have challenged remarks by Ho Ching on why Singapore abolished estate duty, criticising her for downplaying inequality and oversimplifying the debate on wealth taxation.
Some argued that framing wealth taxes as ineffective because wealthy individuals may relocate places excessive weight on capital mobility, while overlooking broader concerns such as fairness, social cohesion and public trust in the tax system.
In a Facebook post on 13 February 2026, Ho, former chief executive of Temasek Holdings, outlined why wealth taxes such as estate duty often generate limited revenue and why Singapore opted for alternative approaches.
Estate duty history and rationale for removal
Estate duty is a tax imposed on the wealth of a deceased person.Introduced in Singapore in 1929, it was designed to target the very wealthy, with exemption thresholds gradually raised over time to reflect rising property values and household wealth.
The tax was abolished in 2008.
Ho argued that many countries that implemented direct wealth taxes eventually removed or reduced them due to limited effectiveness.
She said wealthy individuals could relocate or shift assets globally to minimise tax liabilities, resulting in relatively low revenue collection.
According to Ho, Singapore’s estate duty collections were historically in the low tens of millions of dollars, partly because high-net-worth individuals could legally structure assets across jurisdictions.
She also cited discussions in the United Kingdom and California, where potential wealth tax proposals have raised concerns about capital mobility.
Ho added that estate duty removal also supported Singapore’s strategy of strengthening its position as a trusted financial and wealth management hub in Asia, noting the country’s status as a small, resource-scarce economy.
Indirect taxes as alternative tools
Ho said Singapore relies more on indirect wealth-related taxes, particularly through property and vehicle ownership.These include additional buyer’s stamp duty on second or subsequent property purchases, higher property taxes for non-owner-occupied or higher-value properties, and vehicle-related taxes.
She described these as “lifestyle taxes” that are easier to administer and harder to avoid.
She added that vehicle taxes were originally designed to manage congestion due to limited land, but they also function as wealth-linked contributions as higher-income households are more likely to own cars.
Ho said if Singapore were to impose direct wealth taxes aggressively, wealthy residents might relocate or shift assets, adding that such behaviour reflects “human nature”.
Netizens raise inequality and fairness concerns
Observing comment section in Ho's Facebook post, some netizens pushed back, arguing that indirect taxes may disproportionately affect middle-income households rather than the ultra-wealthy, who often hold assets through global structures such as trusts or offshore entities.Some said policies such as certificate-of-entitlement pricing and property-related taxes can make housing and transport feel like necessities rather than discretionary consumption. Others suggested policymakers may be overly cautious about taxing the ultra-wealthy.
Several comments linked current tax structures to broader social perceptions, suggesting locals may feel they bear rising living costs while policies are designed to retain globally mobile wealth.
Supporters of Ho’s view, however, said direct wealth taxes often fail in practice because the wealthy can legally restructure assets or relocate.
They also argued pro-business tax structures help anchor capital, jobs and financial activity locally.
Debate over wealth tax effectiveness internationally
Some netizens argued that the assumption wealth taxes inevitably trigger capital flight is overstated.They pointed to examples such as Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium, which maintain various wealth or inheritance taxes while remaining attractive financial centres.
They also noted that Singapore’s low estate duty revenue before abolition reflected high exemption thresholds rather than inherent tax failure. Some argued the key issue is policy design — suggesting that predictable, targeted wealth taxes can coexist with strong financial ecosystems.
Others stressed that tax debates should also consider redistribution, intergenerational balance and public legitimacy, not just revenue collection.
Population and long-term planning debate
In response to population-related concerns raised by commenters, Ho cited Liu Thai Ker, who suggested Singapore could potentially house up to 10 million people with proper urban planning.Ho highlighted long-term planning ideas such as relocating roads, transport infrastructure and certain industrial activities underground to free surface land for housing, greenery and community uses.
She also mentioned concepts including taller buildings, expanded green corridors, wider pedestrian infrastructure and potential integration of autonomous transport systems alongside future rail infrastructure, implemented progressively through redevelopment cycles.
Ho Ching served as Chief Executive of Temasek from 2004 until 2021, leading the firm for about 17 years after joining in 2002.
Claims that she was paid around S$100 million annually were officially rejected by the Singapore government and Temasek, which said such figures were false and that her compensation was undisclosed but substantially lower.
Wealth taxation remains part of Singapore’s political policy discussions.
The Workers' Party Singapore proposed in its 2025 General Election manifesto a net wealth tax ranging from 0.5 to 2 per cent targeting the top 1 per cent of wealth holders.
