Government’s Choice to Prioritise Credits Over Direct Cash Assistance Divides Public Opinion
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong delivered his first Budget statement on 18 February, outlining key measures such as increased support for skills development, expanded financial incentives for families, and major investments in infrastructure and research. However, much of the public discourse ahead of the announcement centred on whether direct cash payouts would be included, especially with a general election on the horizon.
Rather than large cash disbursements, the Budget introduced a variety of credits under schemes like ActiveSG, LifeSG, SG Culture Pass, and the Climate Voucher programme. Additional financial assistance will come in the form of Edusave and Medisave top-ups, personal income tax rebates, and utility bill discounts.
A notable component of the Budget is the SG60 Vouchers, with every Singaporean receiving $600, while seniors will get an extra $200. In addition, all households will be granted $800 in Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers. The only direct cash payout will come via the GST Voucher scheme, with eligible individuals receiving either $450 or $850 in August 2025.
This approach has sparked significant discussion online, with some Singaporeans expressing frustration over the preference for vouchers instead of cash. Many argue that cash would provide greater flexibility in addressing rising living costs, whereas vouchers restrict spending to specific merchants and services.
One Facebook user, Sky Tan, commented, “Why not just give cash? Too many restrictions.” Another, Kamen Augustine Tan, added, “Cash is better than all these vouchers.” Others pointed out the inconvenience of finding businesses that accept CDC vouchers, questioning why unrestricted financial aid was not provided.
Some netizens also speculated that, given this is an election year, they had anticipated a more generous payout. Facebook user Ismail Ismael remarked, “I was expecting $2,000—this amount feels like peanuts.” Another, Edward Sim, referenced a local saying, warning that pre-election benefits could be followed by post-election cost increases: “We get the chicken drumsticks now, but they’ll take back the whole chicken farm later.”
While some voiced disappointment, others defended the government’s strategy, arguing that vouchers ensure targeted assistance while simultaneously supporting local businesses. Several commenters urged critics to consider the long-term benefits of the Budget rather than focusing solely on immediate financial relief.
As Singapore moves closer to the general election, Budget 2025 has ignited a lively debate about the balance between immediate cost-of-living relief and long-term national economic stability. Whether this approach will win public approval remains to be seen in the months ahead.
