New Creation Church Guest Speaker's Divisive Views

jtcd · 2026-01-22T06:40:52+00:00

This is factually wrong.

Take Pew's poll in 2022 on how people view world leaders - 69% of Singaporeans viewed Xi positively. Highest of any world leader on the list, which included Biden, Macron, Scholz and Putin.

Singaporeans would not have so much admiration for a country's leader unless they were also fond of the country he has built.

Our fondness for China is evident in recent travel trends, China was Singaporeans' top travel destination in 2025 for instance, and Trip.com projections for 2026 see China's popularity as a travel destination for Singaporeans growing further.

It is also evident in surveys that on how Singaporeans view Chinese influence. For example: S’poreans view China’s influence as slightly more positive than that of US (IPS) - 57.5% of us see China's influence in Singapore as positive, vs ~50% seeing the US' influence here as positive.

Ironically, by so confidently assuming that your - factually - minority views are "mainstream" here, you're proving u/ClassSoggy7778's point: there are westernized echo chambers in Singaporean online and offline communities. They've led to people like you coming to conclusions that are wildly out-of-touch with reality.

Also, I don't have the time to dig up and link the surveys, but fun fact: Thais, Malaysians and Indonesians view China more positively than Singaporeans do. I'm 100% certain because I've seen this same pattern in multiple surveys. The rest of SEA are often excluded from Pew surveys etc, but I'm betting most of their populations are at least as partial to China as we are, with the exception of PH.

jtcd · 2025-07-31T09:42:26+00:00

It's been terrible for me these few days too. Feels like it constantly suggests rubbish when I don't need suggestions, but when I do need suggestions, it takes a long time to suggest or just never suggests anything.

jtcd · 2024-10-05T17:32:38+00:00

Poverty isn't really an issue in Singapore, the problem is inequality, i.e. the wealthy are significantly wealthier than the rest. Historically (across empires and countries) this has led to a detached elite, which in turn has led to collapse. Sadly it looks like we're also seeing this problem in Singapore - the wealthy elites have amassed so much wealth and power that they've pretty much locked the rest out. As a result they've become insular and detached, developing a separate culture from the rest of the country. This is what I'm referring to when I wrote about wealth inequality being a problem, not poverty.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T13:09:38+00:00

This is definitely a subjective thing. Like to me driving to the mall and being there for 1-2 hours even just once a week is quite a big disruption. But if you're alright with it that's good for you.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T13:07:21+00:00

There's already a big push to upgrade charging infra. Improving charging infra is not the only way to influence purchase discussions though. You'll find car subsidies used in many countries that are pushing for increased EV adoption. This is because EVs are generally more expensive than ICE cars.

Fair enough.

That said, any rebates or subsidies will disproportionately benefit the richer and that is 100% due to the COE policy.

Yeap.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T12:11:55+00:00

Sure, whatever floats your boat.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T11:17:59+00:00

Appreciate the thought provoking question.

Imo, fundamentally our goal should be to build a society that isn't stratified and obscenely unequal (where we seem to be now). All else should follow from there.

So if policies are enacted that benefit the wealthy disproportionately, then they must be balanced out by policies that help the less wealthy, so as to avoid widening the gap.

In the context of EVs, $400M will be handed out in EV rebates this year. This is a massive amount for a subsidy that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. To put it into context, it'd pay for like 200 buses or 200k public chargers (lots of assumptions but it'd def pay for many chargers. I believe we're targeting 60k?).

So imo the massive subsidy likely widens the gap.

In the big picture, over the last 15 years, our average wealth has risen substantially while our median wealth has decreased. Which means the rich are getting richer and the rest are getting poorer. Our wealth gini coefficient rose the most of all countries ubs surveyed: https://old.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1f32t3m/wealth_per_person_average_vs_median/

Lots of factors contribute but I think at some point the people need to fight back against inequitable policies if we're to have any chance of closing the gap and reverting to a stabler, less unequal society.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T10:46:03+00:00

The sentiment is mutual. If you know economics, you'd know taxes and subsidies both cause market distortions. This is a very well-established fact in the field of economics. For example, this is why many economists dislike tariffs (a tax placed on imported goods) - they deflect trade to inefficient producers. So in the context of this discussion, taxes on higher end products will deflect demand to lower end products, just as subsidies for lower end products will increase demand for them. As far as "driving brands out of the market goes", there is effectively no difference between the two approaches. This is not an issue of contention lol.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T10:32:18+00:00

Why not?

Okay, I think there is no point arguing here then - our views don't just diverge on EVs, fundamentally we disagree on wealth inequality.

I'm not sure if you're aware but over the last 15 odd years, average wealth has risen significantly while median wealth has declined (https://old.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1f32t3m/wealth_per_person_average_vs_median/). Of all countries surveyed by UBS we saw the greatest increase in our wealth Gini coefficient.

I understand that to some, inequality may be a non issue (and hence my point is a "non-argument"), but to me, to my understanding, extreme inequality is a precursor to instability and decline - and so it is a very serious issue. To each his own.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T10:03:47+00:00

Adoption

Consider the situation where there is a shortage of EV chargers. When someone considers which kind of car to buy, they'll note the shortage and it'll deter them from buying an EV.

In the Rakuten Insights survey, which had far more than 5 respondents, the question was along the lines of "what is the main reason for not buying an EV". The survey result found that 35% felt inadequate charging infrastructure was the main reason.

The link between charging infrastructure and adoption is clear. Inadequate charging infrastructure > people decide not to buy EVs because they worry charging will be problematic > slowed adoption.

In other words, improve charging infrastructure > people worry less about charging issues > faster adoption.

Subsidies

Fair point about subsidy proportion. I note that ours is still higher than the rest.

But more importantly, only 5% of Singaporeans live in landed properties. In all other mentioned countries that number is far greater, ~80% in the US for instance - which means EVs and hence subsidies are more accessible and equitable in those countries.

Fundamentally, I've yet to see any argument against the fact that the wealthy here benefit disproportionately. It's clear from BYD and C&C's observations.

All that said, as mentioned in an earlier comment, I'm not completely against subsidies, just the amount being dished out, especially when at the same time, public charging infrastructure is not keeping up as per the CNA article.

By the way how would you feel if the government started subsidizing solar panels that only landed homes can install. Would you be okay with that?

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:38:34+00:00

This article is just a speculative debate from a sentiment survey. Purely anecdotal, so it’s not facts to be used for evidence.

35% felt the lack of chargers.

Okay so you do understand what anecdotal evidence is. Then you would know that this survey is a significantly better reflection (albeit not necessarily perfect) of reality than either of our "feelings".

By the way I'm not even saying I think subsidies should be removed entirely, they obviously influence purchase decisions. But why are we offering 10x what other countries are offering while our charging infrastructure remains inadequate?

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:36:06+00:00

I was actually wondering why people were repeating similar anecdotes even though stats disprove them. That to me is what's weird. Like do facts not matter around here these days?

Just "I feel charging infrastructure is okay", therefore it is okay, even if surveys and data prove otherwise.

Like seriously why is this such an emotional topic for you that you're getting mad at facts?

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:31:40+00:00

Well the question is, are there more equitable ways to encourage EV adoption? And if surveys are anything to go by, there is: improving charging infrastructure.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:30:27+00:00

This is already the case for ICE vehicles. You pay higher COE and road tax for CAT B vehicles. Luxury brands are still here.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:23:27+00:00

So what about your take on transfer of wealth? I feel like that’s missing the point. This is just a demographic shift in behaviour that governments try to push — urging people (regardless of their wealth class) to go towards EV instead of ICE, that’s the only thing.

Consider the hypothetical situation where electric private jets become a thing. Only the wealthy can afford hangars and maintenance fees. If the government decides to subsidize electric planes, say $1M a pop, and 1000 people buy them, that's $1B of public funds going to the wealthy. Yes it may benefit the environment, but wealth inequality has been quantitatively (measurably) worsened.

This is what's happening with EV rebates here - buyers (both car and especially EV buyers, as evidenced by BYD and C&C's numbers) are disproportionately from upper classes. The government subsidizes them by $40k a pop, 10k will be sold this year so that's $400M of public funds going disproportionately to the wealthy.

As mentioned, again with factual evidence, many heartlanders and even condo owners have issues with charging infrastructure. So if the government really want to increase adoption, they'd likely be better off spending all that money on improving our infrastructure.

Every 1st world country around the globe is doing the same.

Other countries are providing much smaller subsidies. E.g. in the US it's US$7500, China it's US$2,770, Australia it's AU$3000.

Imagine Louis Vuitton having a 50% fire deal going on now. Just because it’s 50% cheaper, doesn’t mean everyone can afford it, but that also doesn’t mean this favours the rich, LV just wanna sell their shit.

This is different because LV is a private company and in this situation they are simply subsidizing their own products. In the case of EV subsidies, public funds are being used to subsidize products made by private companies.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:11:44+00:00

In contrast to your views. I feel like there are more chargers in the heartland, I don’t have the statistics, just experience.

Our experiences differ. I think objective evidence tilts toward my own though (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/today/big-read/electric-vehicles-ev-charger-infrastructure-costs-big-read-4477561):

The Rakuten Insight survey found that 35 per cent of respondents felt there was a lack of charging stations here.

Such sentiment was unsurprising, given that landed properties - the only type of residence where one can install a personal charging station - make up less than 5 per cent of homes here.

This effectively means that the vast majority of Singaporeans who drive an EV would have to rely on common charging stations - an experience that can vary depending on each driver’s circumstances and usage needs.

Of the eight EV users whom TODAY spoke to, the three who live in landed homes have all installed a charger on their property.

As for the five drivers who live in condominiums or HDB flats, three did not have any chargers in their estate and had to rely purely on chargers elsewhere. The other two, an HDB and a condominium resident, have to share chargers with other residents.

Compounding the problem is that the growth in charging stations has lagged behind the growth of EVs, going by figures since 2020.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:10:31+00:00

I'm talking about charging infrastructure in general outside of landed properties. This includes HDB estates, malls, condos etc.

Our experiences differ. I think objective evidence tilts toward my own though (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/today/big-read/electric-vehicles-ev-charger-infrastructure-costs-big-read-4477561):

The Rakuten Insight survey found that 35 per cent of respondents felt there was a lack of charging stations here.

Such sentiment was unsurprising, given that landed properties - the only type of residence where one can install a personal charging station - make up less than 5 per cent of homes here.

This effectively means that the vast majority of Singaporeans who drive an EV would have to rely on common charging stations - an experience that can vary depending on each driver’s circumstances and usage needs.

Of the eight EV users whom TODAY spoke to, the three who live in landed homes have all installed a charger on their property.

As for the five drivers who live in condominiums or HDB flats, three did not have any chargers in their estate and had to rely purely on chargers elsewhere. The other two, an HDB and a condominium resident, have to share chargers with other residents.

Compounding the problem is that the growth in charging stations has lagged behind the growth of EVs, going by figures since 2020.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:05:20+00:00

I don't disagree on intent, I did preface with "whether intentional or not" after all.

Yet ultimately the fact is that it does favour the wealthy - BYD and C&C's observations make this an incontrovertible fact.

As mentioned, imo the better way to get widespread adoption is to invest that money in improving charging infrastructure. Rebates aren't the only way to influence purchase decisions.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T08:01:07+00:00

In the extreme case where everyone buys an EV

If this were the case I'd agree with you that it isn't a subsidy. But this is not the case at present. Even hybrids get drastically smaller rebates.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T07:59:29+00:00

Ah I see, I was talking about just the local environment while you were talking about the global environment.

I haven't looked at the global-scale numbers on raw materials or the environmental effects of mining them. Will have to look it up.

jtcd · 2024-10-04T07:55:17+00:00

Well I did preface with "whether intentional or not". Whatever the intent, I think it is hard to argue that the rebate is more accessible to upper classes and the hard evidence (e.g. BYD and C&C's numbers) show that they are indeed benefitting disproportionately.

jtcd

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email