By Democratic Progressive Party

A country’s yearly Budget is not only about giving one-off monetary hand-outs that last the year till the next year’s Budget. A country’s yearly Budget must be about how a Government apportions expenditure of tax-payers’ money in ways that address the country’s medium-to-longterm political, social, economic and other challenges.

In this year’s Budget, there are many “goodies” in terms of cash handouts of various forms. Whilst Singaporeans may rejoice in the immediate and short-term relief these bring, the larger question is whether these “goodies” actually lead to real and substantive positive and sustainable impact on long term challenges.

For example, providing 50% personal income tax rebates (capped at $1,000), quarterly and one-off cash pay-outs to the low-income elderly, $500 SkillsFuture credit for further education, etc are all essentially cash “gifts” that may alleviate some pain this coming year, but does not automatically address long term problems.

A more relevant Budget would be one that addresses creating higher-paying value-creating jobs for the middle-and-lower class and the elderly, bringing down the cost of public goods like public transportation, public healthcare, government housing service and conservancy charges, public utilities like water and electricity, and designing a budget that funds the financing needs of public goods without increasing the cost to the people. It does not help if cash handouts are given out on one hand, and on the other hand, taxes and other costs of public services start to increase.

The recent changes in CPF resulting from the CPF Review as well as the Budget, whilst laudable in many areas, still appear to the public as not sufficiently addressing their concerns of interest rate returns on their CPF savings compared to inflation rate and bank interest rates, of giving greater decision-making on withdrawals to the people themselves, and of where the investment profits being earned from the use of CPF funds are going to if not back to the people themselves.

A citizen who has been working from age 20 years old to 55 years old has 35 years of funds contribution to their CPF. Many think it time to give back to the working class their CPF monies, because when the CPF was introduced before Singapore became independent, the main objective is to fund their retirement after 55 years old. Many want to see CPF changes that allow them to withdraw their hard-earned CPF money.

The common impression that the people’s hard-earned CPF funds seem to be used as a source of cheap funds for Government and GLCs investments, at the expense of higher interest rate returns on their CPF funds, also need to be quickly and properly address, or it will be a ticking political timebomb.

The Budget’s intention to help companies to innovate and expand overseas is well-placed, but again, the solution is through giving of grants, deferred tax/levys, etc. What the Budget really needs to address more directly, is the creation and supply of higher-quality local labour in value-creating jobs, a faster and more effective way of increasing productivity, and focusing on business where Singapore companies can have a clear competitive advantage in the region against global and regional competition.

The areas of industry priorities outlined in the Budget are also not industries that can easily create many more new jobs or absorb lower-income workers quickly. This will likely rear its head again down the road.

We need each year’s Budget to build more and more longterm self-sustainable local businesses as they grow and expand overseas organically, and for this sustainability to in turn lead to longterm strategic self-sustainable economy in Singapore.

Higher taxes for top 5 percent income earners from 2017 does indeed give a “Robin Hood” flavour to the Budget. But the real question is, where and how will this increased tax revenue be distributed and spent on, and will it lead to a greater re-distribution of real financial wealth downwards to the middle and lower income groups?

Or will the funds go towards other government expenditures that end up benefiting the rich and upper-middle class, and end up squeezing the middle and lower class even more?

Apportioning annual budget to national infrastruture should always be a good thing, as it leads to increase in public good. However, this is true only if the infrastructure being built benefits the majority in society, especially the middle-to-lower income group. Such worthwhile infrastructure include public roads, public transportation systems, public hospitals, etc.

In this regard, increasing hospital beds and public MRT lines are steps in the right direction. But it is difficult for the middle-to-lower income group of people to see how a large Airport Terminal 5 or more nursing home capacity will benefit them directly where it counts, ie the daily cost-of-living.

Any such investment in public infrastructure, should also not lead to increase in additional basic cost-of-living, like public transport cost, public healthcare cost, etc. Otherwise, such development expenditures end up increasing the daily ongoing financial burden of the common man even more.

All-in-all, we at the Democratic Progressive Party of Singapore, call for a Budget that:

  • creates higher-value jobs for the middle-and-lower income, elderly and marginalised in society
  • increases productivity, competitiveness and long-term self-sustainability of local SMEs, which in turn builds a long-term self-sustainable economy for Singapore
  • greater investment in public goods, like public infrastructure, public transportation, public healthcare, etc that can be shared and benefited by the majority in society (especially the middle-to-lower income groups), and lead to lowering, not increasing, of cost-of-public-goods to the common man
  • a longer term sustainable national wealth re-distribution from the very rich down to the sandwiched middle-class and further down to the poor and marginalised. This should not be designed as annual-Budget-to-annual-Budget cash handouts and incentives, but as a self-sustaining, self-operating systemic wealth re-distribution set of policies in job creation, minimum wages, affordable public services, etc.

We encourage the Government to actively seek the feedback and suggestions of the community, various interest groups, and other political parties, and to openly and thoroughly discuss and review the Budget. We also call on Parliament to vote for any necessary tweaking for a revised budget that is more relevant to addressing key challenges of today as well as tomorrow in Singapore.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Mahathir’s ‘Pejuang’ fights for Malay rights and against kleptocracy, not against S’pore: Playwright Alfian Sa’at responds to Minister K Shanmugam

Malaysian statesman Mahathir Mohamad’s new political party Pejuang positions itself as a…


《亚洲新闻台》在上周的25日,访问国会议员针对中央公积金自动领入息年龄的观点。其中有三名行动党议员,认同公积金局当前把自动领取入息年龄定在70岁的做法。 他们认为,应维持现状,会员若要在65岁就开始提取入息,应向公积金局申请。 其中,巴西立-榜鹅集选区议员再纳(也是职总助理秘书长)认为,上述决策“非常逻辑和有效”,因为会员可以自行选择,要在65岁至70岁之间任何一年申请领取入息。 “如果把自动入息定在65岁,可能有些会员会忘记,而错过申请延迟领入息的时限。” 早前,有网民转载分享,一名即将迎来65岁生日的公积金会员,收到了公积金局的来信。信函通知他,如有意在65岁就开始提取存款,就必须另行通知当局,否则,就要等到70岁才能自动入息。 此事引起群众热议,更讥笑公积金局含糊其辞,不如直接把自动入息定在65岁,简化程序。 不过,凤山议员陈慧玲和蔡厝港集选区议员余家兴,却认同再纳的观点。陈慧玲的正职是林德集团二级产业(企业战略与市场情报)负责人;余家兴则是联昌银行凯利板首发证券(IPO)业务负责人。 陈慧玲认为,两种方案都会有人赞成或反对,对于那些选择延迟入息的人,如果他们忘记而错失申请延迟时机,也会不高兴。 余家兴则补充,随着再就业年龄已经提高到67岁,让民众延迟入息很合理。“会员可以选择在65岁就领入息。但是如果65岁就自动给付,但是如果那时他们还继续工作,就违背了退休金为保障退休生活的目的。” 他也认为,随着人们的寿命增长,如果他们还有工作,应该延迟领入息,来保障他们晚年生活。 但,很显然余家兴忽略了,有好些老人从事的都是清洁工和保安等低薪工作,还要一直很努力地维持他们的生计。


国家发展部长黄循财反驳,公共组屋买家只是租户,不拥有组屋产权的说法,是“不符事实和法理的”,也没有根据。 他提醒,有关住房政策的辩论应该基于事实,而不是误导性的消息。 黄循财在昨日出席公共组屋专业建设高峰论坛。接受媒体采访时,他坚称,不论是私有或公共的租赁产业,买家在租赁期间(period of lease),都能对对自己的产业行使所有人权益。 “他们可以透过出售房产从中受益,或者出租出去。” 他强调,住房政策一直都备受热议,民众可能对它有不同看法,政府也愿聆听各界意见来继续改善。 他指出,自从政府在1967年落实土地买卖计划以来,所有私人住宅地买卖都只有99年的租赁期。这是因为国内土地不足,需要循环利用土地,为将来世代建设足够的住宅。 事实上,在更早前,总理李显龙在上月24日在一项活动上致词时,就尝试反击有关组屋的99年屋契只是长期租约的说法。 李总理:99年屋契“长期租约”不可思议 他直言这种想法“不可思议”,很多私人住宅地契也是99年,但是没人说那是租赁。他边界,公共组屋的屋主,可以自住、转售、或遗赠后代,享有的好处其实比私宅屋主更多。 针对我国为何不仿效他国的廉价租房政策,李显龙则解释,“租户”和“屋主”对待房产的态度不一样。租户不会对房产长期价值感兴趣,但是屋主就会负起维持房子状态的责任,也会捍卫可影响房价的社会暨相关制度。…


仿效英国“首相问答时间”,马来西亚首相马哈迪同意在国会召开期间,每周三到国会回答议员提问。 目前,马国国会每周二和周四已设有部长问答环节,而首相问答时间环节则落在周三。 马国会下议院副议长倪可敏早前曾透露,希望能在下一季国会会议,落实“首相问答时间”环节。 不过,上述建议曾在上月底,被负责国会事务的首相署部长刘伟强所否决。 当时刘伟强指,现阶段已有部长问答时间,无需增设首相问答环节。 不过,最近刘伟强又改口风,希望能落实首相问答时间环节,让马哈迪亲自解答议员的提问。 在英国,首相问答环节定在每周三的中午12时至12时30分。通常先是议员询问首相行程,再来就是议员提问,特别是反对党领袖可以提问多达六道问题。而每次的首相问答环节免不了唇枪舌战。 议员、媒体在国会走廊为敦马庆生 另一方面,今日马哈迪亦有出席国会会议,针对议员提问回答马航去留问题。 他透露,马国政府目前收到许多有关马航的献议,但政府尚未决定是否要出售马航,或是与其他公司以合伙方式接管马航。 他认为,无论是收购或以合伙形式接管马航的公司,都必须答应不会更改马航的名字,不能让马航与马来西亚“脱离关系”。 另外,买家或合作伙伴也必须答应不能裁员。…