Tag: Budget 2015

  • PAP Engineering A Subservient Middle Class

    PAP Engineering A Subservient Middle Class

    Every stable well developed first world country will have one common characteristic, a large and strong middle class. A strong middle class is the basic building block of a mature and developed economy and society. A strong middle class provides the consumption as well as the inputs needed to drive and sustain a country’s economy.

    I offer an alternative perspective to the author’s rendition of needs and wants.

    Needs are defined as a necessity for survival for every living creature. It is however not unique to the middle class or any class. Healthcare, safety, law and order, housing, education.. are universal requirements.

    Wants are the source of inspiration and motivation for a better quality of life for ones family. This is the basic DNA of humanity that drives its ability to create, innovate and progress a nation forward. Without wants, a state of mediocrity will exist.

    What the reporter Rachel advocates is that for the Singaporean middle class to accept mediocrity, and become the subservient workforce to support the PAP elitist policy of providing for themselves, super rich and rich. Such policies like the freeze on medical student intake remaining the same since the beginning of times, the removal of the recognition of law degree programs from overseas universities, the PAP propaganda to discourage our youth from pursuing higher education, the prejudice of university scholarships against our Singaporean youth. By denying the opportunities for advancement for our youth, the PAP government is once again engineering themselves to dominate over Singaporeans and to rule forever.

    Therefore as the subservient workforce forever doomed to a life of submission, the middle class should have no ambition for improving their quality of life, and therefore not harbour any desires for wants. Needs is enough for the middle class and for all Singaporeans, except the PAP and the rich.

    The PAP is saying to all Singaporeans to accept the life of mediocrity and serve the rich and elites.

    PAP has no credibility

    Comment appeared in TRE article: ST reporter says middle-class can’t tell ‘needs’ from ‘wants’

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Budget Is For Future, Not For Getting Votes

    Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Budget Is For Future, Not For Getting Votes

    While some may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of government spending, budgets cannot be “all sweetness and light”, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

    The Government shapes the Budget in the interest of Singapore’s future and not to win elections, and this may involve some measures that are unpopular, Mr Tharman said, speaking at a dialogue with about 400 youths organised by the People’s Association Youth Movement yesterday.

    “You should be very worried if you have a government that disburses only nice measures … because that never lasts,” said Mr Tharman, who is also Finance Minister. When countries reverse policies, it is the poor who will be most affected and the Budget this year ensures the Government will not have to do that in years to come, he added.

    Mr Tharman’s comments echo earlier remarks he made when wrapping up the Budget debate last Thursday, when he said the Republic has to sustain a fair and inclusive society for generations, “not one election at a time”, as has been the case in the United Kingdom and other advanced economies.

    Yesterday, more than 30 questions were posed in the 90-minute dialogue on policies introduced in the Budget, including concerns about the SkillsFuture scheme, the Silver Support Scheme and the petrol duty hike.

    Mr Tharman said SkillsFuture, which will provide credits to Singaporeans for use in training and enhancing vocational education through better internships and paid apprenticeships, will not only help make Singapore a more competitive economy, but also enhance social mobility. This is because it will provide learning opportunities for all Singaporeans throughout their lives, regardless of their education qualifications.

    Mastery of skills is essential to keep Singapore competitive in the global economy and is possible regardless of one’s academic achievements, he said. Currently, learning is too “front-loaded” and involves too much “information cramming” and competition in the first 10 years of life. However, he said life beyond school is not a race, but a continuous discovery of one’s potential.

    “SkillsFuture is for everyone: Those who dropped out early, those who went to university, those who are in mid-career, those who already have a Masters degree … If you’ve got a university degree, after a while, frankly, it doesn’t mean very much. So it’s for everyone regardless of qualifications,” said Mr Tharman.

    Asked why the S$500 SkillsFuture Credit is not offered to Singaporeans before the age of 25, Mr Tharman said it is important for those fresh in the workforce to spend time learning on their jobs.

    While he acknowledged the value of developing multiple specialisations, particularly how synergies among different skill sets can lead to innovation, Mr Tharman said that mastery takes time.

    “To develop deep skills, you really need time … so don’t move too quickly,” he said.

    In terms of education and career counselling, the minister said it is important for those as young as secondary-school age to gain exposure to the real world. For older students, career guidance can be geared more towards specialisations and internships.

    Junior colleges should also explore offering some courses centred on applied learning, he said. “I think that provides a bit more fluidity because people don’t know for sure at that age if they are more interested in an applied pathway or a more conceptual route. So having a bit of both is useful.”

    Mr Tharman added that getting employers on board SkillsFuture is vital but also challenging, because many small and medium enterprises may not have sufficient resources to invest in training and development. He added that employers must also adopt an “enlightened attitude” towards training.

    “If we all keep thinking short term, we will be caught in a vicious circle, where the employer does not invest in the employee, and the employee as a result feels he does not have an important future in the firm and moves,” he said.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • NCMP Lina Chiam: Breakthrough Budget, But More Help Needed For Those Who Fall Through The Cracks

    NCMP Lina Chiam: Breakthrough Budget, But More Help Needed For Those Who Fall Through The Cracks

    NCMP Lina Chiam delivered an impassioned speech during the debate on the Budget. In her critique of Budget 2015, she did acknowledge that the budget was indeed a breakthrough in the eyes of many as it signified a shift in mindset of the PAP towards the underprivileged.

    However, she also reminded the members of the house of the stark realities on the ground and how the Budget still fails to help those who fall through the cracks. In her analysis of the various policies addressed, she discusses what more can be done to improve the system.

    She took a clear stance against cosmetic changes and argued for more substantial and effective changes. As an analogy, she remarked how the Budget leaves much to be desired as it moves from the mantra of ‘no free lunch’ to that of ‘guarding your lunch’. You can read her speech in its entirety below.


    Yes, Budget 2015 is a breakthrough Budget, but there is a need to identify who this breakthrough is for. “There is no free lunch”, this has been the mantra of this Government for a very long time. In keeping with this mantra, for about 50 years, assistance schemes have been kept measly and targeted at a small group of people.

    The reality however is that, in any society, some people need free lunches. After pressures from, various quarters and especially from the people of Singapore, there seem to be a mind-shift in the top-echelon about doing more for the less-abled. So, the breakthrough is more for the ruling Party, the Budget is a testament to that, and so must be welcomed.

    Silver Support Scheme

    The Silver support is a permanent feature of Singapore social safety net which gives assurance in retirement. The scheme will disperse annual payouts targeted for needy elderly Singaporeans which comprise of the bottom 30% lower income and sandwich class aged 65 and older, will cost $350 million for the first year and likely to be raised over the years when more Singaporeans turn 65 and the cost of living rises.

    This Scheme is specially welcomed. It is a signature Scheme which the Government officially acknowledges that there are a sizeable number of senior citizens who receive meagre income for sustenance. About 150,000 people will benefit from this scheme.

    The scheme should be reviewed every 4 years for future batches of the elderly to prevent under declaring their income which defeats the purpose of promoting strong work ethics.

    Senior Citizen Allowance Scheme

    While the silver support Scheme is commendable, it benefits a relatively small group of senior citizens. Many citizens over the age of 65 have contributed much to Singapore in their younger days. The Government could have recognised the contributions of these older citizens by a Senior Citizen Allowance Scheme which will give all citizens above the age of 65 $500 two-times in a year. Such a Scheme will be on-top of the Silver Support Scheme. The Scheme should cost the Government about $450 million in the first year.

    Budget 2015 should also mention the Social Service Sector, an important sector which provides for social and community services in Singapore.

    The government should help this sector to achieve sustainable economies while using resources productively instead of just depending on charity for funding their objectives.

    Revise HDB’s Resale Levy Policy

    Since the intent of HDB’s Resale Levy Policy is to reduce the second subsidy for second-time HDB flat buyers, it is a fair policy to have. It is the desire of many middle-income families to move to a slightly larger HDB flat. To a considerable number of citizens who aspire to upgrade to a bigger flat, the resale levy, which has to be paid upfront, remains a obstacle. The Resale Levy Policy could be revised where the levy (of between $15,000 to $50,000 depending on the type of flat first-owned) is added to the price of the 2nd-flat, and the 2nd-timer be given an option either upfront in cash or monthly throughout the duration of his mortgage loan.

    Car ownership

    In Singapore, car ownership is a necessity rather than a luxury for needy commuters. They need a car for various reasons.  The bigger upfront fees (cap on car financing loan) and deposit quantums mean many middle-income commuters who want a car will be priced out of the market. At the time of introducing the curbs on car financing the Finance Minister said that the measures were not permanent and were meant to keep a lid on inflationary pressures and rein in borrowing, As concerns of inflation have now lessened, and as car loans are not unsecured, the Government should lift the cap car loans at up to 60 per cent of purchase price.

    The Government should also consider moving away from the Certificate of Entitlement system  which curbs car ownership, to a system which is premised on car usage.[1]

    Unemployment Insurance

    In the Our Singapore Conversation job security emerged as the top 3 concerns of Singapore.[2] In a recent Nielsen Survey Job Security topped the list of concerns for Singaporeans.[3] Even if unemployment rate in Singapore among citizens remain relatively low at 2.6 percent, the Union reported that:

    “At the national level, 7,710 workers were retrenched in the first three quarters of 2014, based on figures from the Ministry of Manpower. This is higher than the 7,220 laid off in the corresponding period a year before, as more workers were retrenched in the services sector last year.”

    The Budget could have called for the establishment of an insurance scheme as a safety net for middle-income Singaporeans for whom the security of continuous employment is increasingly being thrown into question. The Korean Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS) be studied as a model.[4]

    Personal Income Tax Rebate

    The Budget will provide for a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 50 per cent, with a cap of $1,000. It must be noted that the majority of Singaporeans (55%) do not pay income tax.[5] So, even if most squeezed middle-income families will not cheer this tax rebate, it will nevertheless benefit a sizeable number of middle-middle income and the high-middle income families.

    Foreign Domestic Worker Concessionary Levy

    The Budget halves the foreign domestic worker (FDW) concessionary levy – from the current S$120 to S$60 – to help families who are taking care of the elderly, from May 1. The concessionary levy will also be extended to households with children aged below 16 – up from below 12. This levy could  be totally waived for the first FDW for households who employ such workers to care for senior citizens. This would not only further lessen the burden on such households, but will also help the elderly to age in place rather than in a nursing home.

    Raising taxes to meet the rising social expenditure

    The Budget announced that top marginal income tax rate will go up to 22 per cent, from the current 20 per cent, for the highest income-earners with a chargeable income above S$320,000. There will also be smaller adjustments made to raise income tax for the others in the top 5 per cent bracket. This is done presumably to meet the rising social expenditure.

    The budget will be funded by the top 5% of income earners from 2017. What will happen when the economy hits a recession? How do we fund it then?

    Tax increases may also affect people’s confidence in government policies when overdone and might affect Singapore competitiveness. The government have to find a balance for it.

    Some analysts have predicted that the Government will further raise indirect taxes (like Goods & Services Tax [GST]) to fund the rising social spending.[6] GST is a regressive tax and the Government should not only maintain the GST at the current 7%, but should also identify essential goods and remove the GST on these essential goods.

    To help cushion the impact of  the lower income earners, we should exempt GST on certain necessities such as milk powder diapers, medicines, health supplements, mobility aids and exercise equipment for the elderly. Apparently the usage of diapers were rationed in some nursing homes to reduce costs. This is very unhygienic for the wearer.

    Yesterday NMP Miss Chia Yong Yong cautioned not to lean too much to the left lest we have nothing much left in social spending. While this idea seems intuitively correct and is consistent with the popular narrative of the economy, but I would also  like to point out , that between countries like Sweden which spends about 30% of their GDP on  social spending and others like Hong Kong which spends about 3%, there is a middle path. Finding the middle path is what Singapore has to get right

    The need to raise revenue to meet the rising social spending though is real for the Government and it should consider the following measures:

    1. Raise the top-marginal income tax rate to 25 percent. This would still be one of the lowest top-marginal income tax rate in the world and at the same time would raise a revenue of 500 million – 1 billion. The Finance Minister said that the change to top income rates is expected to raise additional revenue of $400 million per year when it comes into effect. So if it is raised by a further 3 per cent , the additional revenue would be about $1 billion.

    2. Re-instate Estate Duty at 5% for total assets (without differentiating between residential properties or other assets) between $10m to $15m, and 10% for amounts above that.

    3. Raise the casino tax rates to 22.5% for non-premium players and 7.5% for premium players.

    4. Include capital receipts (which include revenue from sales of land and capital goods and other capital receipts) as revenue receipt.

    Education

    The Budget announced several measures for students from childcare to polytechnic education (e.g. new partner operating scheme, lifting of exam fees, etc) but stopped short of making major announcements for tertiary students (accept for the top-ups to Post-Secondary Education Accounts which the Finance Minister said could be used for offsetting course fees for ITE and Diploma students). This is probably because of the Government’s concern about the graduate glut which it feels could result in “overeducated and underemployed” workers.
    I am all for the government’s initiative to build a foundation and create an environment for life long learning which empower each Singaporean young or old to chart their own journey in life and to gain fulfillment at work and even in senior years

    I myself obtained my BA in communication and media management  last year from UNISA.

    CPF

    The government appears to be offsetting the effect of increased interests for CPF accounts (for the first $30,000 in CPF accounts from the age of 55) by increasing the contributions of employees aged 55-65 (for both employees and employers). In toto, we believe this signifies the government’s intention to stick to a conservative approach to the CPF. We continue to urge the government towards more flexible options for the usage of CPF savings. This is increasingly because Singaporeans, starting from their late 50s, cannot afford to be cash-strapped.

    What’s Missing?

    Singaporeans have expressed that budget concerns, especially manpower issues, are not adequately tackled in Budget.

    Most importantly the issue of rising costs of business and high rental costs for SMEs was not addressed. Every type of costs should be reviewed, from skills levy, utilities, hiring of workers. For example, some restaurants cannot cope with customers because of workers crunch. This problem may lead to dip in the productivity or stay flat for sectors such as construction, retail and food & beverage.

    We need to micro manage the system of hiring work permit holders not just by  giving monetary incentives to boost productivity for companies

    Productivity incentives should not be positioned as subsidies. As I mentioined in my last year budget speech, the firms with low productivity should be allowed to be restructured or closed down.

    As Singapore face economic uncertainty and global competition like other counties we need to foster deep skills and innovation to be positioned  amongst the leaders in Asia and globally.

    The next stage of economic restructuring is to keep the economic vibrant by pushing for innovation beyond productivity.

    To meet our future economic and social needs, Singapore is investing in infrastructure for the future such as embarking on the development of Changi’s Airport’s new terminal t5,

    Middle income families in Singapore is the group that form the bulk of the community who are generally viewed as helping to maintain society in an even keel. It’s the middle income group that we want to look after. They are also the active stakeholders with investments in infrastructure. They felt the squeeze in the rise of their monthly income compared to households from the top and bottom of the ladder.

    Driven by technology advances, these are the Singaporeans who should be most interested in the skills initiatives futures which aims to encourage continuous learning to muster the skills relevant to their work or pick up new ones or hopefully lift up wages.

    I hope the skills future initiatives will take a targeted approach by identifying the skills required by each sector to support their development. More details on the skills future credits should be more forthcoming to fund their training costs.

    Attrition risk may put firms off future credits and would caution that the skills future initiative may not lead to more job loyalty or higher pay increase because most Singapore employers are rather stingy or because they really cannot afford to pay.

    In fact, I would think Skills Future may lead to more job hopping!

    Also $500 skills future credit for every Singaporean over the age of 25 and above can also be accumulated for future years may not be ideal.

    What’s should be noticed

    Special Employment Credit (SEC) and the additional SEC which provide employers with a wage offset encouraging Re-employment beyond age 65.

    What can be deduced from Budget 2015

    It has taken incremental steps in addressing some of the inequality in our society. But incremental means unnecessary inconveniences and hardships for those that are affected now by these problems and need solutions to it now, and not in the future.

    Budget 2015 recognises that many Singaporeans clamor for a more egalitarian society where income inequality is further reduced, but has attempted to address them not in a wholistic manner, but with tokenism.

    With it’s lack of sufficient support for Singaporeans wishing to pursue university education to the Schemes to encourage employment beyond age 65, Budget 2015 sets the vision for most Singaporeans to be employed after attaining their ITE or Diploma qualifications and to stay employed to a ripe old age.

    Perhaps Budget 2015 has tried to entrench the ‘work till you drop’ mantra because the current Government is concerned that competitors are out to steal the lunch of Singaporeans, and that it is better for us to guard our lunch.

    So yes, from ‘no free lunch’ to ‘guarding your lunch’, there has been some progress, and Budget 2015 highlights this.

    Madam Speaker, I support the motion.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • The Workers’ Party Calls For More Flexibility In CPF Draw Down Age, De-Link From Retirement Age

    The Workers’ Party Calls For More Flexibility In CPF Draw Down Age, De-Link From Retirement Age

    By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
    [Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2015]

    Mdm Speaker,

    The DPM and Finance Minister has laid out the key thrusts for the Government in his Budget statement. My speech will focus on retirement adequacy and the CPF scheme in particular.

    Th CPF scheme has a long history in Singapore that pre-dates our independence. The Central Provident Fund Bill was introduced by the Singapore Progressive Party in the Legislative Council in 1951, while Singapore was still a British Colony. The CPF scheme provides a mandatory retirement savings plan for local workers. It is a “defined contribution” scheme, whereby every member takes out only what he has contributed. This has helped the Government avoid the heavy burden of Budget-financed pension liabilities that many other countries face.

    While CPF provides a basic payout for retirees, it does not assure full retirement adequacy, particularly for those in the lowest income groups, including home-makers and people with disabilities.

    Minimum Sum

    The Minimum Sum requirement, which has been renamed to “Retirement Sum” by the CPF Advisory Panel, was introduced in 1987. It prevents CPF members from withdrawing their entire CPF savings in one lump sum when they retire. They are only allowed to withdraw amounts in excess of the Minimum Sum, plus another $5,000, at age 55.

    This has been deeply unpopular among many Singaporeans. Many feel that since the money in our CPF accounts belongs to us, why should the Government control when and how much we can withdraw? “We’re not children after all,” some would say. A recent poll by Channel NewsAsia found that the majority of respondents would like a choice to withdraw all of their CPF money at age 55.[1]

    I empathise and identify with these sentiments. I too would like to be able to withdraw all my CPF when I turn 55. Apart from paying off day-to-day expenses, I feel confident of being able to manage my own money well and not squander it. However, the reality for me, and I think many other working Singaporeans, is that if not for the forced savings that CPF has imposed, we would probably have saved much less for retirement.

    As pointed out by Mr Donald Low from the LKY School of Public Policy in a commentary in The Straits Times last week, faced with a choice between an immediate reward and a larger delayed benefit, people often choose the former.

    Also, even if CPF members make an effort to invest their retirement savings after they are withdrawn, not many have investment skills that are good enough to consistently beat the current 4% CPF Retirement Account interest rate in the long term.

    We also have to be on guard against swindlers who will try to find ways to persuade vulnerable elderly folks to part with their CPF money if they withdraw the full amount at one go.

    Therefore, while we understand Singaporeans’ strong sentiments about the Minimum Sum “locking up” our CPF money, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Workers’ Party is not asking for CPF members to be allowed to withdraw all their CPF money in a lump sum, except under special circumstances.

    Flexibility in Draw-Down Age

    Having said that, there is still room for providing CPF members with more flexibility in determining when to start receiving monthly payouts from their CPF. Currently, members can start drawing down their CPF only upon reaching their DrawDown Age, now known as the Payout Eligibility Age, which will be 65 from 2018 onwards.

    Some CPF members may have genuine reasons for needing monthly payouts to start earlier than age 65. For example, they may have been retrenched and, because of a skills mismatch or age discrimination, may not be able to secure another job. Or they may be labourers who are simply be too old to do manual work. When I observed the young men who helped me move the heavy furniture in my home recently, I wondered how long they would be able to continue in that role, and what jobs they would do once they are not strong enough to carry such heavy loads.

    The Workers’ Party therefore proposes lowering the Payout Eligibility Age to 60. This will give CPF members the flexibility to start receiving CPF monthly payouts earlier, if they need to, instead of having to wait until age 65. This was a call made by my colleague, the Member for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, in May 2014.

    I agree with the CPF Advisory Panel’s recommendation to give members flexibility to defer their Payout Start Age to as late as 70, with a permanent 6 to 7% increase in monthly payouts for every year that they defer.[2] In line with this, under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, there would be a permanent 6 to 7%decrease in payouts for every year that members choose to bring forward their Payout Start Age. Members must be made aware that their monthly payouts could be significantly less should they choose this early payout option.

    De-link Payout Eligibility Age from Retirement / Re-employment Age

    Many Singaporeans have expressed frustration about the constantly increasing Payout Eligibility Age. It is was 63 last year, 64 this year and will be 65 in 2018. It seems to be moving up together with the Re-employment Age. Perhaps it is assumed that people are able to work until the Re-employment Age and do not need to draw down their CPF savings before that.

    However, just because the Re-employment Age has been raised does not mean that everyone will be able to work until 65, as I explained earlier. Furthermore, the statutory Retirement Age is now only 62. This leaves a gap of 3 years that a retiree will have to tide over, should his company not offer him re-employment until 65.

    I would like to reiterate the Workers’ Party’s earlier calls for the Payout Eligibility Age to be de-linked from either the Retirement Age or the Re-employment Age. Even if the Retirement Age is increased, the Payout Eligibility Age should remain constant at 60. This will provide members with more assurance of when they are eligible to start drawing from their CPF, regardless of their employment status, instead of wondering when the target will move again.

    Public education on CPF system

    Madam, I would like to touch on the public education aspects of the CPF scheme. The CPF Scheme is not easy to understand, regardless of one’s level of education. The large amount of technical jargon, acronyms, figures and different conditions that apply to people with different birth years, all add to the confusion.

    There is a pressing need to increase and improve public education about the CPF scheme. The CPF Advisory Panel has also recommended that more public education on CPF is needed.

    A recent poll by REACH, the government feedback unit, found that only 13% of respondents under 55 were able to provide the estimated monthly payout amount under CPF LIFE if one met the Minimum Sum requirement. With greater choices provided in the CPF scheme, it is important that CPF members are fully aware of the implications of their choices, including the lower payouts if they choose to start withdrawals earlier or withdraw a lump sum.

    I am aware that there are many ways in which CPF Board tries to get its message out, including pamphlets, public seminars and even advertisements on YouTube. However, none of these ensures that a CPF member is fully aware of the choices he has to make at critical junctures, like at age 55 and 65. A letter is sent to CPF members just 1 to 2 months before they turn 55, to inform them that they can apply to withdraw their CPF. This may not give them enough time and information to consider their choices carefully.

    My observation is that public education on CPF currently focuses a lot on how CPF benefits Singaporeans, or to clarify misunderstandings about CPF. The questions asked in the REACH poll are quite telling. They include questions like “If you do not meet your Minimum Sum requirement, do you need to top up the shortfall in cash?” and “Do you think you will receive a monthly payout from age 65 if you do not meet the full Minimum Sum?”

    Public education on CPF should be more tailored to individual members, focusing on the information and numbers that are directly relevant to them and the choices they have to make. We should not confuse people with numbers that are irrelevant to them, like the different Minimum Sum amounts and Draw-Down Ages for different age groups. While the CPF website has a number of useful calculators, not every retiree is technically-savvy enough to access and use them correctly.

    I would therefore like to suggest that before reaching the age of 55, every CPF member should be invited to meet one-on-one with a CPF Board officer, who should explain the details of the scheme, including how much he has in his account, how much he can withdraw, when he can withdraw, the choices of CPF LIFE plans and what his monthly payouts will be. This should be conducted in a language or dialect that he is comfortable with, and he should be allowed to bring a few family members to the meeting. It should be done at least a 3 months before the member becomes eligible to withdraw his CPF.

    This personalised meeting should be done on top of the public seminars that are available to CPF members. It will provide a channel for important information to be explained personally to the member and to give him an opportunity to seek clarifications from the officer.

    Silver Support Scheme

    The last matter I wish to raise concerns the Silver Support Scheme. While CPF payouts are usually enough to meet the retirement needs of seniors who have the Full Retirement Sum or more at retirement, there is a sizeable number of Singaporeans whose CPF payouts are insufficient to meet basic household expenditure.

    The solution for these individuals cannot be to postpone their CPF withdrawals or place further restrictions on their use of CPF and Medisave. This will only exacerbate their difficult financial situation. I am glad the Government has finally acknowledged that individual responsibility through the CPF system has its limits, and that it is time to provide a form of old age support for needy senior citizens.

    While the details of the Silver Support Scheme are still being worked out, I would like to make some remarks on the scheme based on what the Finance Minister has announced.

    First, the Silver Support quantum seems rather low, ranging from $100 to $250 per month. This is much lower than what even the poorest 20% of households spend each month on basic household necessities, which is $761 per month for all households[3] and $317 per month for retiree households, according to last year’s Household Expenditure Survey.[4]

    Can the DPM share his basis for deriving the Silver Support quantum? Does it look at household expenditure, and does it assume that all retirees receive additional forms of income like children’s contributions?

    Given the increasing cost of living in Singapore, I urge the Government to ensure that Silver Support is enough to cover retirees’ basic household expenses and that it also increases over time to account for inflation.

    Second, while I agree that the Silver Support Scheme should provide targeted support, the evaluation criteria should take into account the current financial situation of the seniors and should not be so stringent that genuine cases end up being excluded. In particular, the “household support” criteria must not deny Silver Support to seniors whose children are unable to support them or whom they are estranged from. Needy seniors should not have to suffer for their children’s inability or unwillingness to support them.

    My third request on Silver Support is that it should be paid out monthly instead of quarterly. Silver Support recipients are not working and receiving a salary, unlike Workfare recipients, yet they still have monthly household expenses like bills, food, transport and rental. A monthly payout would help seniors in their cash flow management.

    Conclusion

    Madam, in summary, I would like to reiterate the four main proposals in my speech:

    First, more flexibility should be given to CPF members to start receiving CPF payouts as early as age 60, if they need to, so as to help those who are not able to find work at that age. Second, the CPF Payout Eligibility Age should be de-linked from the Retirement or Re-employment Age, to provide more certainty for seniors.

    Third, personalised public education should be conducted for all CPF members, in their preferred language or dialect, well in advance of their 55th birthday, so as to give them more time to consider their options and discuss with family members. And fourth, the basis for calculating the Silver Support quantum should be made public and it should take into account the current financial situation of seniors to ensure that the needy are not excluded. It should also be paid out monthly instead of quarterly.

    Thank you, Madam.

     

    Source: http://wp.sg

  • MPs Question Fiscal Sustainability Of Budget Schemes

    MPs Question Fiscal Sustainability Of Budget Schemes

    About a week after the Republic unveiled a Budget that was hailed by various quarters for its generosity and far-sightedness, several Members of Parliament (MPs) yesterday raised concerns about the Government’s fiscal sustainability, given that the projected spike in social spending coincides with a moderating economy.

    An ageing population would also mean less revenue that could be derived from taxes, they added, stressing that the Republic’s healthy reserves should not be taken for granted.

    In all, 25 MPs rose to speak during the first day of the Budget debate. Apart from concerns about fiscal sustainability, MPs generally welcomed Budget measures such as the SkillsFuture initiatives and the Silver Support Scheme, and offered suggestions on the implementation of the new programmes. They also highlighted the continuing struggle among businesses to raise productivity, but stressed the need to stay the course.

    The introduction of more social safety nets and other measures to mitigate social inequality prompted Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim to observe a “leftwards” shift.

    In particular, she said the Silver Support Scheme — which gives cash payouts to needy elderly — came as a surprise to most. “It embodies what the People’s Action Party government has always eschewed — having any form of rights-based, ‘defined benefits’ welfare scheme,” Ms Lim said. “Up to now, government assistance schemes were usually temporary and subject to continuous means-testing and conditions, with applicants needing to fill up forms and provide documentary proof of illness and family income.”

    She added: “This Budget explicitly talks about strengthening social safety nets. This suggests a shift to the left, a direction which I believe is right … A shift left does not necessarily undermine economic performance, but could well enhance it.”

    Holland-Bukit Timah GRC MP Liang Eng Hwa said the Budget signalled a further shift to the left, but this was possible only because “over the past 50 years, we have built a stronger and more sustainable financial position through careful budgeting and sheer discipline”.

    Still, Nominated MP (NMP) Chia Yong Yong urged prudence, quipping: “If we lean too much to the left, we will not have much left.”

    Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced during the Budget statement last Monday that Temasek Holdings will be included in the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework — joining GIC and the Monetary Authority of Singapore — so part of its projected long-term returns can be spent. Personal income taxes for the top 5 per cent income earners will also be raised. With these moves, the MPs felt the Republic has seemingly exhausted ways to boost its coffers, without raising taxes for the masses.

    West Coast GRC MP Foo Mee Har noted that this year’s budgeted expenditure was 19 per cent higher than that in the previous year.

    “While it is assuring to know that these expenditures can be provided for from current reserves accumulated since 2011, it appears that we have come to rely more and more on past reserves to fund our spending, and have now resorted to including Temasek in the NIR framework to make ends meet,” she said. “How will we know when we have gone too far, when we have crossed the line in fiscal prudence — that tried-and-tested principle that has seen Singapore through many economic crises?”

    Distributing a table showing figures from the Ministry of Finance, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair pointed out that if Singapore had not been drawing from its reserves via net investment income contributions, it would have run up “large deficits for a number of years”.

    Noting that government expenditure will continue to rise, he warned: “We are running out of levers to pull. After Temasek, there is no next.”

    He added: “Increasing taxes on the top 5 or even 10 per cent will get you only so far, and there will be considerable pressure on the Government not to raise taxes for everyone else … There will no doubt be calls on the Government to raise the NIR contribution beyond 50 per cent, but that means leaving behind less for our children, so where do we go from there?”

    Mr Liang suggested that the Government regularly review the country’s fiscal sustainability, with additional scrutiny and oversight on spending programmes that last longer than 10 years.

    With the economy moderating, NMP Randolph Tan said, ultimately, the fiscal strength to fund more social programmes would have to come from strong economic growth. “Singapore has to be cautious and prepare for the possibility that — unlike resource-rich and larger economies —slower growth may not turn out to be the idyllic experience we imagine,” he said. “By simultaneously drawing on surpluses, proposing a deficit and announcing a surprise rise in taxes on the wealthiest, this Budget gives us a glimpse of the stark realities we face.”

    The Budget debate continues today.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com