Advocates for the SST exemption argue that elderly care is a fundamental social necessity rather than a luxury, and therefore should not be treated as a standard commercial service. By removing the eight per cent tax, the government would directly lower the monthly expenses for thousands of families who are already struggling with the rising cost of living. This relief is seen as a critical step in supporting the 'sandwich generation'—adults who are simultaneously caring for their own children and their ageing parents.
Proponents of this view highlight that the current tax structure creates an uneven playing field. While some facilities are exempt, many JKM-registered centres are forced to pass the tax cost on to families, making quality care less accessible for middle-income households. A targeted exemption would allow these families to redirect their limited resources toward other essential needs, such as medical treatments or better nutrition for their elderly relatives.
Furthermore, supporters argue that the government has a moral obligation to incentivize the growth of the care sector as the nation ages. By reducing the tax burden, the government can encourage more operators to enter the market and improve the quality of care provided. This approach aligns with broader national goals of building a more age-friendly society, ensuring that the elderly can live with dignity without placing an unsustainable financial strain on their families.
Ultimately, the argument for exemption is rooted in the idea that the state should prioritize the well-being of its senior citizens. By treating elderly care as a protected service, the government can demonstrate its commitment to social welfare and long-term stability. This policy shift would not only provide immediate financial relief but also signal a proactive approach to managing the challenges of an ageing population.