|
93. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked why it is okay for
the Government to incur a deficit of $2.9 billion
and yet when the opposition suggests increasing
expenditure on education and healthcare, we say
it is fiscally irresponsible - which it is.
94. The reason is that the Workers' Party proposes
to spend regardless of whether we can afford
it on a sustained basis. To quote the Workers'
Party Manifesto, it talks about "an unconditional
needs-based welfare safety net". In contrast,
this Government lives within its means without
neglecting its obligations to lower-income Singaporeans.
Regular expenditures are funded by regular revenues
and not irregular capital receipts. I had explained
earlier that the Progress Package does not draw
on past reserves and will not impose an ongoing
fiscal burden on taxpayers.
95. Mr Steve Chia's speech yesterday shows vividly
where the opposition's approach will lead. He
wants to raid the bank. He proposed cutting all
sorts of taxes and fees; just declare that Christmas
has arrived. Or as ZaoBao says "zuo chi
shan kong" (sit and eat until the mountain
is empty); it is precisely this kind of free
spending which the Constitution and the Elected
President have been designed to prevent. The
safeguard ensures that our past reserves are
protected and politicians will not make free
with them in order to win popularity.
96. But the Workers' Party advocates that we abolish
the Elected Presidency and remove the Second
Key. That is why I believe that the Opposition's
approach and the Workers' Party's approach is
fiscally irresponsible.
97. Mr Low Thia Khiang's memory also seems to have
been selective. He claims we are not spending
enough for Singaporeans who need help. But, he
has forgotten. During downturns, we have provided
assistance to Singaporeans who have difficulties
coping. Mr Low said that after giving out the
New Singapore Shares and holding elections in
2001, we pushed up the GST rate. Yes, we did.
But what we also did, which he forgot to mention
is that before we raised the GST, we provided
$2.7 billion worth of Economic Restructuring
Shares to help Singaporeans cope. So the GST
was completely buffered by the Economic Restructuring
Shares, and the New Singapore Shares is a completely
different package, a clean benefit which all
Singaporeans enjoy. So to say that the New Singapore
Shares resulted in the GST after the elections
is as they say in Latin “suppressio veri
suggestio falsi” (by suppressing the truth
you suggest a falsehood).
98. Mr Low also said we have not done enough to
help the poor on a consistent basis, and our
help is only once in five years. Since 2001,
this Government has spent about $7.8 billion
in total for a variety of assistance measures
not counting this Progress Package. This includes
the New Singapore Shares in 2001, the ERS from
2002 to 2004, the CPF Top-Ups from 2004 to 2006,
U-Save, Service and Conservancy Charges and Rental
Rebates, and so on. A typical low-income household
would have received more than $11,000 in total
from all these schemes. This, not counting the
Progress Package.
99. Furthermore, Mr Low has had nothing to say
about the substance of the Progress Package,
unlike, for example, Mr Chiam See Tong, who has
gone through and has pointed out some issues
with implementation, particularly with the Workfare
Bonus. Indeed, Mr Low had nothing to say about
his alternative propositions as to how the Workers'
Party proposes to take Singapore forward and
to help low-income Singaporeans - nothing. It
only shows that he is really not interested in
whether Singaporeans are getting the help they
need. He is only interested in scoring political
points.
100. The underlying principle that must continue
to guide this Government is fiscal prudence.
Every term of the Government must live within
its means and the Budget must be in overall balance
over the economic cycle, and that is what guides
this Government.
|
