My input on what the MPs had articulated in yesterday Budget2015 debates on a point-by-point basis as summarised in the Asiaone.com website 04 March 2015 :
1. Almost half of the 25 MPs who spoke in Parliament yesterday expressed this concern to varying degrees, with Nominated MP Chia Yong Yong summing it up thus: "I fear that if we lean too far to the left, we will have nothing left."
Lu: I agreed if we continue to move to the LEFT, there will be NOTHING LEFT. Yet, we have to be positive and optimistic that IF the budget money is well spent, it will REDUCE the bottom 20-30% truly needed seniors above 65.
Also, while there is a concern that aging population means MORE dependent seniors above 65 yrs old, it will be TRAGIC if the baby boomers generation who were BORN in an era of abundant opportunities ended up in the bottom 20-30% that need state's assistance!
The Pioneer Generation is different as they TRULY did not enjoy THAT abundance of opportunities!
One reason WHY I am DEAD against a PG-2!!
2. Some spoke urgently about their discomfort with the direction of greater social spending not just on the lower-income, but also on the middle class. "While I am happy for those (getting more support), I am ill at ease over the ability of future governments to sustain such programmes," said Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC), referring to schemes like generous childcare and domestic helper support.
Lu: This ONE truly puzzled and CONFUSED me. Any decent government would want to create as LARGE a middle class as possible in its border as middle class means this group of people have decent income, living relatively comfortably, should be able to raise the much exhorted 3-kid family while supporting aging parents and parents-in-law comfortably.
The FACT that middle income folks NEED state's assistance PROBABLY means the state HAS NOT done too well in containing the Costs of Living leaving aside the Standard of Living.
Or perhaps, the Middle Class is JUST TOO GREEDY and want state's assistance REGARDLESS?
3. Noting that spending is a "one-way street", Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) cautioned that the Government has few levers left to pull in plugging its deficit - contrary to popular belief that it has unlimited means. Referring to the inclusion of Temasek Holdings' gains in the calculation of projected returns that it can use for spending, he said: "After Temasek, there is no 'next'." As long as the mindset among Singaporeans is that the Government must have the solution to everything, the country's social contract will always be under pressure to be rewritten for the benefit of one or more groups, he said.
Lu: I am concerned about inclusion of NIR as it includes 'realised and NON-realised capital gain' from MAS, GIC and now, Temasek. EVERYONE know how DEEP a hole GIC and Temasek were in during the 2008-2009 financial crisis with their billions dollar investment in the then troubled financial institutions, though at the time of BEEN INVITED to invest in them seems flattering, HAD S'pore NOT has a VERY DEEP POCKET. Can we imagined IF we had to LEFT GO of those investments THEN because we DO NOT have holding power? It would have caused MULTI-Billion dollar losses to S'pore!!
So, I am NOT sure it is the way to go EVEN when it ONLY uses 50% max of NIR.
4. But MPs yesterday still largely welcomed the moulding of the social contract that this Budget, together with the few before it, had accomplished. Rather than a "Robin Hood" move, this year's Budget is Singapore's "New Deal", said Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), referencing the massive expansion of social support in the United States after the Great Depression.
Lu: it is UNFORTUNATE that HAD the government proactively initiated the 'social safety net' movement BEFORE the loss of GE2011 and the 2 By-election, it probably DOES NOT has to try SO HARD to give away. Honestly, giving to the middle class is a cop-out!
5. WP chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) argued that there is room to raise taxes on the rich further, beyond the 2 percentage point hike from 2017 announced in this year's Budget. "To a very large extent, the way we raise national revenue and allocate expenses says something about our values as a nation," she said, adding that in its leftwards shift, "perhaps the Government realises that it has been too calculating with the people, and is now making adjustments".
Lu: I am NOT sure if raising personal income tax on the top earners is limitless. Also, someone may want to RELOOK at bringing back Estate Duty as it is DEFINITELY one way to redistribute old money to the society. OF COURSE, when S'pore wants to attract the ultra rich to S'pore to set up home, it will NOT be attractive!!
6. Yesterday, amid the voices in the House urging caution over the expansion of state spending, several MPs also peppered their speeches with requests for more government support for a variety of groups, such as small businesses facing rising costs, or elderly folk ineligible for the Silver Support Scheme because they live in private properties, etc
Lu: Indeed, WHAT had been DONE to curb rising costs of doing businesses in S'pore? Most SMEs are in labour intensive and 'providing services in a physical property location' like F&B, retailing and RENTAL COST is a BIG PART of the total cost. WHAT can be done to 'redistribute/share' the 'profit' from the property developers/owners to/with the tenants?
As for elderly living in private properties who want the CAKES and eat them, I have to say NO to them. It will be so wrong to given owners of private properties that are worth millions 'hand-out' that could have gone to the bottom 20-30% poorest!!
1. Almost half of the 25 MPs who spoke in Parliament yesterday expressed this concern to varying degrees, with Nominated MP Chia Yong Yong summing it up thus: "I fear that if we lean too far to the left, we will have nothing left."
Lu: I agreed if we continue to move to the LEFT, there will be NOTHING LEFT. Yet, we have to be positive and optimistic that IF the budget money is well spent, it will REDUCE the bottom 20-30% truly needed seniors above 65.
Also, while there is a concern that aging population means MORE dependent seniors above 65 yrs old, it will be TRAGIC if the baby boomers generation who were BORN in an era of abundant opportunities ended up in the bottom 20-30% that need state's assistance!
The Pioneer Generation is different as they TRULY did not enjoy THAT abundance of opportunities!
One reason WHY I am DEAD against a PG-2!!
2. Some spoke urgently about their discomfort with the direction of greater social spending not just on the lower-income, but also on the middle class. "While I am happy for those (getting more support), I am ill at ease over the ability of future governments to sustain such programmes," said Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC), referring to schemes like generous childcare and domestic helper support.
Lu: This ONE truly puzzled and CONFUSED me. Any decent government would want to create as LARGE a middle class as possible in its border as middle class means this group of people have decent income, living relatively comfortably, should be able to raise the much exhorted 3-kid family while supporting aging parents and parents-in-law comfortably.
The FACT that middle income folks NEED state's assistance PROBABLY means the state HAS NOT done too well in containing the Costs of Living leaving aside the Standard of Living.
Or perhaps, the Middle Class is JUST TOO GREEDY and want state's assistance REGARDLESS?
3. Noting that spending is a "one-way street", Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) cautioned that the Government has few levers left to pull in plugging its deficit - contrary to popular belief that it has unlimited means. Referring to the inclusion of Temasek Holdings' gains in the calculation of projected returns that it can use for spending, he said: "After Temasek, there is no 'next'." As long as the mindset among Singaporeans is that the Government must have the solution to everything, the country's social contract will always be under pressure to be rewritten for the benefit of one or more groups, he said.
Lu: I am concerned about inclusion of NIR as it includes 'realised and NON-realised capital gain' from MAS, GIC and now, Temasek. EVERYONE know how DEEP a hole GIC and Temasek were in during the 2008-2009 financial crisis with their billions dollar investment in the then troubled financial institutions, though at the time of BEEN INVITED to invest in them seems flattering, HAD S'pore NOT has a VERY DEEP POCKET. Can we imagined IF we had to LEFT GO of those investments THEN because we DO NOT have holding power? It would have caused MULTI-Billion dollar losses to S'pore!!
So, I am NOT sure it is the way to go EVEN when it ONLY uses 50% max of NIR.
4. But MPs yesterday still largely welcomed the moulding of the social contract that this Budget, together with the few before it, had accomplished. Rather than a "Robin Hood" move, this year's Budget is Singapore's "New Deal", said Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), referencing the massive expansion of social support in the United States after the Great Depression.
Lu: it is UNFORTUNATE that HAD the government proactively initiated the 'social safety net' movement BEFORE the loss of GE2011 and the 2 By-election, it probably DOES NOT has to try SO HARD to give away. Honestly, giving to the middle class is a cop-out!
5. WP chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) argued that there is room to raise taxes on the rich further, beyond the 2 percentage point hike from 2017 announced in this year's Budget. "To a very large extent, the way we raise national revenue and allocate expenses says something about our values as a nation," she said, adding that in its leftwards shift, "perhaps the Government realises that it has been too calculating with the people, and is now making adjustments".
Lu: I am NOT sure if raising personal income tax on the top earners is limitless. Also, someone may want to RELOOK at bringing back Estate Duty as it is DEFINITELY one way to redistribute old money to the society. OF COURSE, when S'pore wants to attract the ultra rich to S'pore to set up home, it will NOT be attractive!!
6. Yesterday, amid the voices in the House urging caution over the expansion of state spending, several MPs also peppered their speeches with requests for more government support for a variety of groups, such as small businesses facing rising costs, or elderly folk ineligible for the Silver Support Scheme because they live in private properties, etc
Lu: Indeed, WHAT had been DONE to curb rising costs of doing businesses in S'pore? Most SMEs are in labour intensive and 'providing services in a physical property location' like F&B, retailing and RENTAL COST is a BIG PART of the total cost. WHAT can be done to 'redistribute/share' the 'profit' from the property developers/owners to/with the tenants?
As for elderly living in private properties who want the CAKES and eat them, I have to say NO to them. It will be so wrong to given owners of private properties that are worth millions 'hand-out' that could have gone to the bottom 20-30% poorest!!
No comments:
Post a Comment