By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article "Social spending – where will money come from?" (Straits Times, Sep 4).
 

How much total reserves?

It states that

"If you add the three pools of reserves up, you get about $800 billion. A very modest 2 per cent return on that comes up to $16 billion a year.

The Net Investment Returns (NIR) contribution last year was $7.91 billion. And even if we assume that the NIR contribution last year had hit the 50 per cent cap, activating the other 50 per cent of NIR would mean an additional $8 billion to the Government".

Only 2% return on reserves?

Since the total sum of Singapore's reserves is a secret, even if we assume that the above conservative estimate of $800 billion is correct, 50 per cent of the NIR assuming an average annualised return of say five per cent, would be about $20 billion.

Temasek 17%, GIC 6%, but NIR 2%?

This estimated NIR is not unrealistic, given that Temasek's and GIC's annualised returns have been reported at 17 (S$ terms) and around six per cent (US$ terms), respectively.

So, even if we spend a lot more on social spending, just the NIR alone may be sufficient, without even talking about the huge budget surpluses in the past, with about nine out of every 10 years in surplus.

Secrets of Singapore?

Of course, the fundamental questions as to why the percentage of the NIR used in a year, the sum of total reserves or the annualised return on the total reserves are a secret, remain.

Spend more, tax more?

As to

"As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his Aug 26 National Day Rally speech, “nothing falls from heaven”.

So taxes will have to go up eventually to fund higher social expenditures – “not immediately” but within the next 20 years.

Annual health-care spending will double to $8 billion over the next five years. This year, the Government introduced the permanent GST Voucher, which pays out a combination of cash, conservancy rebates and Medisave top-ups, with more for older and lower-wage Singaporeans, to offset increases in the goods and services tax. This will cost the Government $680 million this year.

Also formalised in 2007 is the Workfare Income Supplement, which supplements low-wage workers’ income with cash and Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups. This cost the Government $260 million last year.

NIR alone enough for extra spending?

Plans are also under way to spend $60 billion over the next 10 years to improve the transport system. Even adding all of the above comes up to a total of only about $15 billion a year.

Don't include current expenditure as additional spending?

However, on closer scrutiny, one would realise that the above amounts includes current expenditure that we are already spending. So, the additional expenditure is actually only about $10 billion a year.

As explained above, the NIR alone may be about double this additional expenditure in a year.

Thus, the consistent rhetoric that if we spend more means we have to raise taxes does not seem to hold water, not to mention that we have so far not spent significantly more relative to revenue in the last decade or so.

Accounting treatment of Budget surplus?

With regard to

"But the Government also spent $8.58 billion of special transfers on programmes such as Workfare, and top-ups to various endowment funds, such as the Medical Endowment Fund"

This may be a fundamental issue with the way we determine our Budget surplus or deficit, because almost all countries would fund the social expenditure as an expense every year, instead of Singapore's never-ending annual transfers to top-ups to the various endownment funds. I understand that an arbitrary four per cent of an endownmwnt fund a year, is then used to fund MediFund, Workfare, etc.

The result of this may be that the Budget surplus may be significantly under-reported, compared to other countries.

If we change to what other countries do, there may actually be a lot more money that we can spend on social spending, on top of the NIR explained above.

You May Also Like

黄循财:需在居民立场取得平衡 黄国光称不放弃争取组屋合法养猫

义顺集选区议员黄国光昨日(7日)表示,不会放弃争取组屋内合法养猫。 国家发展部长黄循财在本月6日透过书面答复议员提问,指政府必须在养宠物的居民与拒养宠物的居民之间取得平衡,不负责任放养宠物可能有碍社区整洁,严重可能造成邻里不睦。 他指可能“有碍整洁”的情况,包括宠物脱毛、宠物在公共场所随意大小便、以及喂养流浪猫等。 黄循财也指出,尽管这些不负责任行为很有可能会出现,但也不排除组屋内仍有爱猫、且愿意为居民居住环境着想的居民。因此建屋局将会与国家公园管理局,以及兽医服务持续检讨和改善宠物所有权政策。 随后,黄国光于脸书上发文表示,尽管此次争取不成功,但仍未能阻止他持续推行组屋内养猫的想法。 “看起来,对于建屋局而言,组屋内养猫仍然不行,但我会持续坚持下去,为组屋养猫持续发声。” 义顺集选区议员黄国光多年来关注动物相关议题,也是动保团体Animal Concerns Research and Education Society(简称ACRES)的创始人兼首席执行官。…

328 cases of Zika infection, as 14 new cases confirmed

The Ministry of Health (MOH) announced that as of 12 pm on…

美容院忽然结业客户慌! 消协五天接17起投诉

一家美容院忽然宣布倒闭,令许多已购买数千元配套的顾客感到不知所措!消费者协会在五天内接获17起和该美容院有关的投诉,涉及总金额高达2万3000元。 在本周一,位于乌节路国际大厦的美容院Ginza Calla对客户发出短信,指该美容院当天结业。该美容院在官网上指出,虽然营业没有受到冠状病毒19疫情过多影响,却也是该美容院结束本地业务的导因之一。 但是美容院的忽然关闭,引起顾客的担心,而在脸书上也出现了Ginza Calla Support Group群组,由受影响的顾客所设立,为其他受影响的顾客提供援助。截至今日,该群组已经有257名成员。 大部分成员都担心是否能够获得退款,且表示曾多次拨电到公司询问,但是都没人接听;发电邮则受到自动回复,表示公司所接获的电邮众多,目前正在审核客户合约及退款资格,并表示会在五天后或更长时间处理完毕后,会发邮件向客户交代退款事宜。 有的会员在群组中指出,当他们接到消息拨电到美容院时,美容院职员感到非常惊讶,不知道公司已经宣布倒闭。 消费者协会指连续五天接获17起和该美容院相关的投诉,大部分消费者都申诉他们无法自未完成的配套取得退款。此外有的消费者申诉购买了无限次配套,但是已经进行至少六次疗程的客户无法取得退款。 当局预料会有更多生意受到冠病疫情冲击,而面临倒闭,因此促请消费者在购买预付配套之前,要三思而后行,毕竟一旦公司宣布破产,消费者将难以取得赔偿。

重返政坛? 杨荣文卸私企职引揣测

日前,我国前外交部长杨荣文在个人脸书透露,将在五月底卸下香港嘉里物流联网(Kerry Logistics Network,KLN)主席兼执行董事一职。 有关脸书贴文,也是写给他在KLN的同侪的信函,表示自己将在5月31日,卸下主席暨执行董事职位,惟将继续担任嘉里物流的高级顾问,每个月仍会返回香港总部报到,所以不算是真正的道别。 信函提到,妻子一年前大病初愈,来到65岁,自己希望能多花时间陪家人,并追求其他兴趣。 早在去年2月1日,杨荣文曾透露,在前年换上鼻腔癌的妻子梁利平,在美国接受治疗后已没有癌症迹象。 在2011年的全国选举,杨荣文领军的行动党团队在角逐阿裕尼集选区时,遭到工人党刘程强的团队挫败。他不久后就卸下外长职位并结束23年的政治生涯。 随后,加入马来西亚糖王郭鹤年的嘉里集团。 他曾在接受香港《南华早报》访问时指,在败选后不久,反对党领袖刘程强接受访问时这么说:之所以取得胜利,并不是对手没有做好工作,而是老百姓希望(反对党)进入国会。 杨荣文当时表示,这句话点醒了他,理解问题并不是出在他身上,而选择开展新的人生篇章,弃政从商。 重返政坛? 不过,也有坊间猜测,这次杨荣文卸下商界职务,会否是“弃商从政”,重返政坛?…