Singapour
The SME Policy Index is a benchmarking tool for emerging economies to monitor and evaluate progress in policies that support small and medium-sized enterprises. The ASEAN SME Policy Index 2018 is a joint effort between the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East-Asia (ERIA), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (ACCMSME). The report is the outcome of work conducted by the ten ASEAN Member States (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam).
Divided into eight policy dimensions, it builds on the previous edition of the ASEAN SME Policy Index 2014. The current edition presents an updated methodology which makes this document a powerful tool to assess the strengths and weaknesses that exist in policy design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation for SMEs, and allows for a benchmarking of the level to which the ASEAN Strategic Action Plan for SME Development (SAP SMED) 2016-2025 has been implemented. Its objective is to enhance the capacity of policy makers to identify policy areas for future reform, as well as implement reforms in accordance with international good practices.
The report provides a regional perspective on recent developments in SME-related policies in Southeast Asia as well as in individual ASEAN Member States. Based on this analysis the report provides a menu of concrete policy options for the region and for the individual countries.
This paper reviews evidence on the interplay between professional standards for teachers, the content of teacher education and educational sciences, and provides three case studies to illustrate these interactions from Estonia, Australia and Singapore. In particular, it investigates what aligning teacher education programmes to standards really mean; and what conception of educational sciences is reflected in the standards and the curriculum. Analyses suggest that alignment, as an explicit, direct and consistent correspondence, is difficult to achieve, in part due to different conceptualisations of professional knowledge. However, this paper argues that the main value of standards as policy tools lies in their capacity to create mutual dialogue between different artefacts (standards’ requirements, curriculum, course descriptions, accreditation standards, etc.), as well as among stakeholders. Regularly renegotiating the standards as a result of such dialogue and reflections should be a crucial part of the policy process.
Under Action 14, countries have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.
The peer review process is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 assesses countries against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Singapore, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.
The Revenue Statistics in Asian Countries publication is jointly undertaken by the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and the OECD Development Centre, with the co-operation of the Asian Development Bank and with the financial support of the European Union. It compiles comparable tax revenue statistics for Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. The model is the OECD Revenue Statistics database which is a fundamental reference, backed by a well-established methodology, for OECD member countries. Extending the OECD methodology to Asian countries enables comparisons about tax levels and tax structures on a consistent basis, both among Asian economies and between OECD and Asian economies.
Over the past ten years economic growth in Asia has contributed to a reduction of poverty as well as fertility rates, and greater prosperity has contributed to gains in life expectancy. However, at present many workers still work in informal employment, frequently for long hours at little pay and without social protection coverage. A growing demand for social support, extending the coverage of social protection benefits and improving the job quality of workers will be among Asia’s major challenges in future. This report considers these challenges, providing policy examples from countries to illustrate good practice, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Viet Nam.
An important objective pursued by the OECD’s work on corporate governance in Asia is to disseminate accurate and up-to-date information on prevailing corporate governance standards and practices in the region, using the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance as a reference. This Survey1 provides a unique consolidated snapshot of the legal, regulatory and institutional framework for the corporate governance of listed companies across 14 jurisdictions that participate in the OECD Asian Roundtable on Corporate Governance.
This publication compiles comparable tax revenue statistics for Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. The model is the OECD Revenue Statistics database – a fundamental reference, backed by a well-established methodology, for OECD member countries. Extending the OECD methodology to Asian countries enables comparisons about tax levels and tax structures on a consistent basis, both among Asian economies and between OECD and Asian economies. This work has been is jointly undertaken by the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and the OECD Development Centre.
This report contains the “Phase 2: Implementation of the Standard in Practice” review for Singapore, as well as revised version of the “Phase 1: Legal and Regulatory Framework review” already released for this jurisdiction.
The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes is the multilateral framework within which work in the area of tax transparency and exchange of information is carried out by 120 jurisdictions, which participate in the Global Forum on an equal footing.
The Global Forum is charged with in-depth monitoring and peer review of the implementation of the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. These standards are primarily reflected in the 2002 OECD Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters and its commentary, and in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and its commentary as updated in 2004. The standards have also been incorporated into the UN Model Tax Convention.
The standards provide for international exchange on request of foreseeably relevant information for the administration or enforcement of the domestic tax laws of a requesting party. Fishing expeditions are not authorised but all foreseeably relevant information must be provided, including bank information and information held by fiduciaries, regardless of the existence of a domestic tax interest or the application of a dual criminality standard.
All members of the Global Forum, as well as jurisdictions identified by the Global Forum as relevant to its work, are being reviewed. This process is undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 reviews assess the quality of a jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory framework for the exchange of information, while Phase 2 reviews look at the practical implementation of that framework. Some Global Forum members are undergoing combined – Phase 1 and Phase 2 – reviews. The Global Forum has also put in place a process for supplementary reports to follow-up on recommendations, as well as for the ongoing monitoring of jurisdictions following the conclusion of a review. The ultimate goal is to help jurisdictions to effectively implement the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes.
All review reports are published once approved by the Global Forum and they thus represent agreed Global Forum reports.
This edition of the Southeast Asian Economic Outlook examines medium-term growth prospects, recent macroeconomic policy challenges, and structural challenges including human capital, infrastructure and SME development. It also looks at economic disparities “between” and “within” countries in the region. It provides coverage for Brunei, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam.
While solid growth is forecast to continue until 2017, countries must address structural issues in order to sustain this favourable outlook. Narrowing development gaps presents one of the region’s most important challenges.
For decades Japan has remained at or near the top of international assessments of student learning; and in the past decade, students in Japan have become more engaged in learning. However, the government aspires to improve learning outcomes even further. Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for Japan focuses on how Japan is reforming its education system not only to produce better learning outcomes, but to equip students with the skills they need to navigate through the unpredictable labour market of the future and to participate in society as active citizens.
This is the second in a series of reports examining how education systems are handling the challenge of preparing their students for a world of interconnected populations, rapid technological change, and instantaneous availability of vast amounts of information. Like the first volume, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States, this report presents examples from other countries with consistently high-performing education systems or countries that, by redesigning policies and practices, have been able to improve their education outcomes, as measured by the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the world’s most comprehensive and rigorous survey of students’ skills and attitudes towards learning.
The future of Greece’s well-being will depend on improving educational performance to boost productivity and improve social outcomes. In the current economic context, with the need to get best value for spending, Greece must and can address inefficiencies in its education system.
The challenges are significant. For example, Greece lags behind many OECD countries in performance on PISA, including countries with the same or lower levels of expenditure per student as well as countries with the same and lower levels of economic development. Salary costs per student are above the OECD average, mostly because Greek teachers have less teaching time and Greece has smaller classes. A smaller percentage of students who enter tertiary education complete a first degree within the statutory study time than in any other country in Europe.
To address the challenges, the Greek government has established a bold agenda and sought advice from a task force on the development and implementation of reform proposals that reflect best practices in OECD countries. This report provides the outcomes of the work of the task force. It presents a roadmap for how the reforms can be successfully implemented, with pointers to relevant experience in other countries. As a contribution to the on-going policy discussions in Greece, it recommends specific short-, medium- and long-term actions that can improve efficiency in the country’s education system.
The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes is the multilateral framework within which work in the area of tax transparency and exchange of information is carried out by over 90 jurisdictions which participate in the work of the Global Forum on an equal footing.
The Global Forum is charged with in-depth monitoring and peer review of the implementation of the standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. These standards are primarily reflected in the 2002 OECD Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters and its commentary, and in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and its commentary as updated in 2004, which has been incorporated in the UN Model Tax Convention.
The standards provide for international exchange on request of foreseeably relevant information for the administration or enforcement of the domestic tax laws of a requesting party. “Fishing expeditions” are not authorised, but all foreseeably relevant information must be provided, including bank information and information held by fiduciaries, regardless of the existence of a domestic tax interest or the application of a dual criminality standard.
All members of the Global Forum, as well as jurisdictions identified by the Global Forum as relevant to its work, are being reviewed. This process is undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 reviews assess the quality of a jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory framework for the exchange of information, while Phase 2 reviews look at the practical implementation of that framework. Some Global Forum members are undergoing combined – Phase 1 plus Phase 2 – reviews. The ultimate goal is to help jurisdictions to effectively implement the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes.
All review reports are published once approved by the Global Forum and they thus represent agreed Global Forum reports.
US President Obama has launched one of the world’s most ambitious education reform agendas. Under the heading “Race to the Top”, this agenda encourages US states to adopt internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace: recruit, develop, reward, and retain effective teachers and principals; build data systems that measure student success; and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices and turn around their lowest-performing schools.
But what does the “top” look like internationally? How have the countries at the top managed to achieve sustained high performance or to significantly improve their performance? The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) provides the world’s most extensive and rigorous set of international surveys assessing the knowledge and skills of secondary school students. This volume combines an analysis of PISA with a description of the policies and practices of those education systems that are close to the top or advancing rapidly, in order to offer insights for policy from their reform trajectories.
As reported in Singapore’s stage 2 peer review report published in October 2020, Singapore had 93 tax treaties of which 87 were in force and 6 (Armenia, Brazil, Gabon, Greece, Kenya and Turkmenistan) not yet in force. Of the 93 tax treaties, 83 contained a MAP provision that is in line with or will be modified by the Multilateral Instrument to be in line the Action 14 Minimum Standard.
Singapore is exposed to occasional floods, droughts, storms, and heatwaves, and also has some risk of exposure to earthquakes or tsunamis. Although Singapore is located in Southeast Asia, a region generally known to be highly hazard-prone, its overall disaster level is low and the country has been relatively sheltered from the impact of major disaster events (Lin et al., 2021[1]). The WorldRiskReport estimates that Singapore faces little disaster risk.