Tag: Tharman Shanmugaratnam

Behind PAP’s Victory, A Rising Star

Singapore’s ruling party is celebrating a resounding re-election victory, thanks partly to its economic Tsar, an ethnic Tamil politician whose voter appeal poses an awkward question for its leaders: can a non-Chinese ever become prime minister?

As the People’s Action Party (PAP) settles down to another five years in power, the guessing game of who will succeed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has begun – and the name of Tharman Shanmugaratnam keeps coming up.

The odds of Shanmugaratnam, who is deputy prime minister and finance minister, making it to the top job should be long.

All three of Singapore’s prime ministers to date have been of Chinese origin and, in a country where three-quarters of the residents are ethnic Chinese, it would be hard to break that tradition. Just one in 10 Singaporeans can, like Shanmugaratnam, trace their roots back to South Asia.

PAP officials declined to comment on the question of who will come after Lee, 63, who has hinted that he may step down by 2020, because it is a sensitive subject in a party that is in any case instinctively secretive.

Lee has said that the chances of a non-Chinese becoming prime minister are better for the new generation of leaders but a lack of Mandarin, widely spoken here, could be a problem.

For some Singaporeans, though, the idea is as outlandish as a non-Malay prime minister in Malaysia or an Indonesian from outside the political heartland of Java becoming president.

In a book published two years before his death this year, Lee Kuan Yew, Lee’s father and the deeply respected first prime minister of this tropical city-state, listed four ethnic Chinese men as the new generation of up-and-coming leaders.

Still, Shanmugaratnam’s hustings performance in the run-up to last week’s election was so impressive that even an opposition candidate, Paul Tambyah of the Singapore Democratic Party, openly longed for him to lead a grand coalition of parties.

“People would like to see Tharman around to set the tone for a new PAP leadership,” said Catherine Lim, a long-time political commentator and critic of Lee Kuan Yew.

“It’s time now for a completely different one, and the only person whom I can think of to set that tone convincingly and who can appeal to Singaporeans across ethnic groups would be Mr Tharman,” she said.

Shanmugaratnam, 58, said in July he was not keen on the prime minister’s job, though he expected Singapore to have a leader from one of its minority ethnic groups at some point.

He was not available to comment for this article.

A TRANSITIONAL PRIME MINISTER?

The PAP won almost 70 percent of the popular vote in the election, a stunning recovery from its record low of 60.1 percent in 2011. In his own district, Shanmugaratnam led a handful of lawmakers to a win with about 80 percent of the vote.

Analysts say that rebound was helped by a wave of patriotism after the death of Lee Kuan Yew and independent Singapore’s 50th birthday celebrations, but also by a slight shift from unbridled capitalism to Western welfarism that was led by Shanmugaratnam.

In his campaign speeches, Shanmugaratnam pressed the right buttons for an electorate that has in recent years begun to question the hard-nosed growth-at-all-costs policies of the PAP that left many marginalised and struggling to make ends meet.

In a calm baritone and with his trademark avuncular style, he crunched numbers to show how social welfare is working.

He also explained changes the PAP has embraced after 50 years of unbroken rule, but conceded still more were needed.

“It used to be a top-down government, often quite heavy-handed,” he told one rally. “It’s no longer that way … Strong leadership is listening, engaging, moving with people.”

Shanmugaratnam spoke some Mandarin on the campaign, and when he quoted from an ancient Chinese poem at one rally the crowd exploded with cheers.

He was educated at the London School of Economics, Cambridge and Harvard, and spent most of his career at the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the island state’s central bank and financial regulator.

He got into a legal tangle in the 1990s when he was fined for failing to protect the secrecy of official information after economic data was published in a newspaper ahead of its release. Shanmugaratnam had pleaded not guilty.

He is also well known on international circuits: a darling of international investors, he was appointed chairman of the International Monetary Fund’s policy steering committee in 2011.

Eugene Tan, a law professor at Singapore Management University and a political commentator, said one obstacle for Shanmugaratnam is that he is seen as part of the prime minister’s generation, when perhaps ideally a new generation would be coming forward.

“However, if it is assessed that a transitional prime minister is needed while the fourth generation is ready to take over, then … Tharman is well-positioned to step up,” Tan said.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

September 15, 2015
Singaporeans Congratulate Tharman Shanmugaratnam For Single-Handedly Winning GE2015 For PAP

Singaporeans from all walks of life who suddenly found themselves covered in white have come out to congratulate and commend Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

This after Tharman’s Jurong GRC team beat Lee Hsien Loong’s Ang Mo Kio GRC team for best result by clinching 79.28 percent of votes. The national average is 69.9 percent.

One Singaporean, Hen Ai Ni, said Tharman’s showing is proof that PAP’s talent distribution is uneven: “Even though his official title might be DPM, in my heart and mind, he is my prime minister.”

“He is the only reason there is still hope for the PAP.”

Other Singaporeans said Tharman’s statesman-like demeanour and intellect is what makes up for whatever shortfall and dead weight the party is facing.

Another Singaporean, Jiak Leow Bee, said: “The PAP with Tharman Shanmugaratnam inside is like Geylang United signing Wayne Rooney.”

“The PAP won 83 out of 89 seats in total, so it is the duty of the 82 others to thank Tharman personally. They must not and cannot be so ungrateful.”

At press time, other Singaporeans said they wonder how is the PAP going to resurrect Lee Kuan Yew and put him to sleep again to recreate the same mood five years from now.

Source: http://newnation.sg

September 14, 2015
Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Nothing Is Free

Free healthcare and education? Not without heavily taxing the middle income, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam yesterday.

DPM Tharman, who was a guest speaker at the People’s Action Party (PAP) rally at Petir Road, said that providing free, or close-to-free, social services would pass a huge burden to the middle-class citizens as their taxes would have to be raised to finance such a policy.

Earlier, the Singapore Democratic Party had said that it would also push for a “fair universal health insurance scheme” by raising the Government’s portion of the country’s healthcare expenditure from 30 per cent to 70 per cent.

DPM Tharman said: “When you think of free healthcare or close-to-free… social services that we all like the idea of, you must realise it is not free. The average citizen is paying, and paying for it big time,” he said.

The same outcome would arise if the Government were to give out cash benefits – a proposal that some opposition parties have suggested, he added.

“There is no way, no way of giving something to everyone, whether it is everyone getting $300 when they get older or every child getting $300.

“There is no way of achieving it without raising taxes on the middle income group. I’ve been studying this for years (from)… countries around the world,” he said.

The Reform Party had promised to give every Singaporean below 16 a $300 monthly child benefit and to introduce a $3 billion a year pension scheme that will give $500 a month to seniors older than 65.

Singaporeans First also proposed a monthly $300 allowance for children and the elderly, and subsidised healthcare, transport and childcare fees.

Finally, DPM Tharman said the PAP, if re-elected as the Government, would not look to raise taxes after the general election.

He said such scaremongering tactics from the opposition were “just cheap”.

“We have been upfront and I said it in this year’s budget very clearly: We have raised the revenues we need for the next five years.”

Source: www.tnp.sg

September 6, 2015
Tharman: Social Upliftment Is Real Success Story

At the heart of the Singapore story in the past 50 years is its broad-based social upliftment, not its multi-fold increase in gross domestic product per capita, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam yesterday as he stressed that the Government’s more decisive shift towards mitigating inequality began close to a decade ago.

“It’s not just the innovation of the last five years. And I recognise, of course, that there’s some political cunning in saying that this all came about because of GE2011,” he said, referring to the General Election four years ago.

“I’m sorry, it didn’t. The world didn’t start in 2011. We made very clear our intentions and our motivations in 2007, stated that it was going to be a multi-year strategy and, step by step, starting from the kids when they’re young, through working life, and into the senior years, we’ve been moving towards a more inclusive society.”

Mr Tharman, who is also Finance Minister, added: “We intend to continue on this journey, learning from experience and improving where we can. But this is not the result of 2011.”

The broad-based social upliftment came about through a combination of economic and social policies, and Singapore’s economy could not have succeeded without social strategies, he said at the Economic Society of Singapore’s SG50 Special Distinguished Lecture last night. “Social strategies were critical all along the way,” he said. “Economic and social strategies have gone hand in hand and that is the Singapore story.”

From the 1960s to 1980s, the focus was very much on economic survival with very little support for the poor in the “explicit sense”, he said. Social well-being went up through focusing on the fundamental basics such as jobs and housing.

Mr Tharman noted that in the 1965 Budget speech by Mr Lim Kim San, there was only one mention of social intervention — the provision of 40 more places at Mount Emily Girls’ Home to cater to a total of 85 girls.

From the 1990s, social policies started coming to the fore, with Edusave grants for students, Medifund to assist the poor with medical expenses and housing grants for the resale market announced, he said.

From around 2006, a more decisive rebalancing to ensure Singapore remains an inclusive society began, he added.

Rebutting sceptics who said the shift came about after the 2011 General Election, Mr Tharman flashed charts to show the amount of government transfers lower-income households received, after paying taxes.

In 2005, the bottom 20 per cent of households in terms of income received S$103 in net government transfers for every S$100 earned. In 2010, the quantum of net transfers increased to S$136. By 2015, the figure was S$163.

Government transfers include Workfare income supplements, housing grants, healthcare and education subsidies.

In the next phase of development, the Government wants to make sure Singapore becomes a more inclusive and innovative society, said Mr Tharman, who noted that “the two things go hand in hand”.

Singapore must keep creating value and earn its place in the world by being original to keep incomes growing. It must also keep working to ensure “birth is never destiny”, he said. The low- and middle-income will also need more assurance as they get older.

The Silver Support Scheme, which will provide payouts to needy elderly, will temper inequality in one’s golden years. The Central Provident Fund scheme is also a key pillar as it is not only an individual savings scheme, but also one that features government transfers to the lower-income through Workfare, housing grants and extra interest earned.

Based on the latest policies in these areas, a 25-year-old at the 10th percentile of the income ladder today would have received about S$200,000 from the Government — or about 40 per cent of his total CPF savings — by the time he turns 65, Mr Tharman said.

All countries would like to sustain income growth, mitigate inequality and keep social mobility, but few have succeeded or maintained success on all three fronts, he said. But Singapore has not done badly on these fronts.

Singapore’s Gini coefficient was relatively high even back in 1980 and its level of inequality now is “not particularly high” before taxes and transfers, when compared with countries such as Finland and the United States, using the OECD method that adjusts for family size.

Countries like Denmark and Finland achieve large reductions in their Gini coefficients after taxes and transfers, but this is through heavy taxation on the middle-income, said Mr Tharman.

Singapore’s approach is to provide targeted help to temper inequality, while keeping relatively low overall tax revenues and helping everyone to move up, he said.

The Republic needs to work hard at it, experiment where possible and learn from mistakes, “but not think there’s only one model that we need to follow”, said Mr Tharman.

“We can’t take a hands-off policy, it can’t be all about self-reliance because the natural workings of the market will lead to inequality. Excessive inequality and it will just sap the morale of our society,” he said. “Neither do we want a strategy of handouts all the way because that just takes the pride out of people and it saps the energy of our society.”

Mr Tharman added: “We’ve got to have a system … of hand-ups starting from young, helping everyone discover their strengths, helping them to have a real chance of succeeding in what they’re doing and having the pride of contributing, so that everyone feels they’re contributing even as they get a fair deal.”

Source: www.todayonline.com

August 15, 2015
Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Open Letter To Finance Ministry Concerning National Productivity Fund
Tharman Shanmuguratnam

Deputy Prime Minister

& Minister of Finance

Ministry of Finance

100 High Street

#10-01 The Treasury

Singapore 179434

Dear Minister,

I have some questions and concerns with regards to the National Productivity Fund (NPF). In particular I am concerned that there seems to be little accountability or Parliamentary oversight of the money spent and no information as to how much money remains in the Fund.

You set the NPF up in Budget 2010 with an initial $1 billion allocation but a commitment to a total size of $2 billion. In Budget 2011 you allocated another $1 billion for the NPF taking the total to $2 billion. In this year’s Budget you allocated another $1.5 billion. This brings the total amount of money allocated to at least $3.5 billion.

It is a constitutional requirement that if you set up a new fund to be managed and administered separately from the Consolidated Fund you must pass a new Act of Parliament to provide for proper administration. If this is not done then under Article 147-(1) you are required to include the proposed expenditures in the annual estimates presented to Parliament before the end of each financial year. Parliament then has to approve the expenditures as part of the Budget process. This requirement is backed up by Article 7-(3) of the Financial Procedures Act that states:

(3) Subject to subsection (3A), moneys standing to the credit of Singapore with any bank, or otherwise held by Singapore may be invested by the Minister —

(a )on deposit in any bank;

(b) [Deleted by Act 45 of 2004]

(c) in gold and other bullion;

(d) in securities of, or guaranteed by, any government or international financial institution;

(e) in any of the stocks, funds, securities or investments; or

(f) as otherwise authorised by law,

and such investments together with the interest and any other income received therefrom shall form either —

(i) part of the Consolidated Fund;

(ii) part of any fund created by any law; or

(iii) part of any deposit account constituted under section 8,

Parliament passed a law setting up the NPF in 2010. However this is not the case for several other funds that you have set up and allocated substantial sums of money to in the last few Budgets. I have been unable to discover any Parliamentary Acts for the Bus Services Expansion Fund (BSEF), the National Youth Fund (NYF) or the Special Employment Credit Fund (SECF), to name a few of the many funds you have set up over the last few years.

Despite being required under the NPF Act to keep proper accounts and records and to present audited accounts to Parliament as soon as practicable, there is no record in the Parliamentary reports of this having been done. I have been unable to find the accounts online or to find any record that the Auditor-General has audited the accounts and controls of the NPF.

The only evidence I can find as to how much money has been spent from the NPF is from the Parliamentary reports. On 15 October 2012, during oral answers to questions on the effectiveness of the Government’s productivity measures, Teo Ser Luck, then the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, revealed that $950 million had been committed from the NPF “to support the slew of productivity initiatives” and that approximately 7,000 companies had benefited. The next update was in the Debate on the President’s Address held on 26 May 2014 when Teo Ser Luck updated the House that half of the NPF had been committed. At that time the amount set aside was $2 billion so that would make total commitments until then $1 billion. Does that represent actual spending or commitments? Does the NPF hold shares in the companies to which it has given grants for productivity improvements or claw back any of the money spent from the financial gains?

I am particularly concerned that the NPF, the BSEF and the SECF have never been shown in the annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities (see link) which Article 147-(4) (b) of the Constitution requires you to present to Parliament at Budget time. The link is to the statement dated 31 March 2013. This is more than two years out of date but is the latest that you allow Parliament and the Singaporean public to have access to. However you have given the President the statement dated 31 March 2014 and there is no reason why Parliament and the public should not have access to the more up-to-date figures.

This is supposed to be “an audited statement showing as far as practicable the assets and liabilities of Singapore at the end of the last completed financial year.” Neither are the BSEF, the NYF or the SECF. However other funds are represented on the liability side of the balance sheet such as the National Research Fund, the GST Voucher Fund, the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, the Government Securities Fund and the Edusave Endowment Fund.

To sum up, I have the following specific questions:
1. Why have the annual Statements of Assets and Liabilities never shown the National Productivity Fund when it is a separate fund established by law and not part of the Consolidated Fund? For example, the National Research Fund is shown as part of the Statement even though the NPF is not.
2. SImilarly why have the annual Statements never shown the BSEF, the SECF or the NYF?
3. Would you agree that it is a Constitutional requirement to include them? If not what is the explanation?
4. If the NPF is not shown on the liability side of the Government’s balance sheet, are the monies allocated still shown on the asset side?
5. Similarly are the monies allocated to the BSEF or the buses purchased with the fund shown on the asset side of the balance sheet? Ditto with the SECF.
6. If it is no longer included on the asset side, does this mean that the entire $2 billion appropriated to the NPF up until Budget 2015 has been spent?
7. Why then did Teo Ser Luck say in Parliament on 26 May 2014 that only half the NPF had been committed?
8. Were the accounts of the NPF ever presented to Parliament as required under the Constitution? Have they ever been audited by the Auditor-General? What about the BSEF and the SECF?
9. Has the money committed been given away in grants and if so to which companies?
10. Was there any requirement to pay back the grants from the increased productivity, if at all, of the companies?
11. Given that productivity has not risen at all since 2010 and is in fact lower than before the financial crisis of 2008, it is difficult to see that there have been any positive benefits from the money spent. Would you agree that this has been a complete waste of taxpayers’ money?
12. Why have Acts of Parliament not been passed to administer the Bus Services Expansion Fund, the Special Employment Credit Fund or the National Youth Fund? You allocated $2.35 billion to the SECF in 2012 and another $0.5 million in 2015 while the figure for the BSEF was $1.1 billion.
13. If no Act has been passed, then would you agree that by law the monies allocated remain part of the Consolidated Fund and all expenditure therefrom needs to be authorised by Parliament?
14. In the BSEF and the SECF remain part of the Consolidated Fund, would you point me to where expenditures from these funds were approved by Parliament as part of the Budget?
I am sure that you will have a simple explanation for these apparent discrepancies and apologise if I have been too obtuse not to see it with the limited access to information given to the Singapore public and Parliament.

You have rightly been vigilant on behalf of Aljunied residents in pursuing an alleged $6.4 million overpayment by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) to their managing agent. Therefore you will understand why I am concerned on behalf of all Singaporeans by possible Constitutional breaches involving sums hundreds of times larger. My concerns go to the heart of transparency and accountability and the reasons why we need a strong Parliamentary check on the Executive. I am worried that without proper accountability and full transparency the monies allocated to the NPF and to other funds not shown could be used to cover up losses at Temasek, GIC and MAS. While there is no evidence that this has occurred there is equally no evidence that it has not. I therefore urge you to release the accounts of these funds without delay and to answer my questions.

You admitted this year that the amounts you allocated to endowments and trust funds do not constitute real spending after we drew this to the public’s attention here, here and here. Yet once they have been allocated they disappear from Parliamentary oversight and control and from the eyes of the public. In view of the Government’s admirably tight-fisted approach to spending on Singaporeans’ welfare, health and education it is vitally important that we see such controls applied to other areas of Government spending to see that there is no unnecessary wastage at best and fraud at worst.

If the funds are not listed in the annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities then it is difficult to see how we are expected to believe that there are adequate controls on spending. We know that the Constitution requires you to provide the President with a summary of the receipts and expenditure of each fund but without transparency how can we know if the President is performing his Constitutionally mandated role adequately?

You have ignored my previous letters written in May 2012 and February 2014 even though the latter showed that you had admitted that the AG had misrepresented a loan commitment as an asset when it is actually a liability in order to defeat my suit over Singapore’s $5 billion IMF loan commitment. Therefore I expect you will ignore this letter and shelter behind the High Court’s decision to deny Singaporeans locus standi to sue their Government if it breaches the Constitution. However if you fail to answer my questions within a reasonable time frame, Singaporeans can and will draw their own conclusions.

Yours faithfully,

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Source: http://sonofadud.com
May 23, 2015