Singapore Democrats

Home News Singapore SDP exposes Government's Budget
SDP exposes Government's Budget Print Email
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Singapore Democrats

At our annual dinner last night, the Singapore Democrats presented an analysis of the Government's Budget and compared it to our Shadow Budget. Making the presentation, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha said: "Our proposals look to the future. They lay down foundations for your children.

"They are not a derisive attempt to remain in power. That comes from a morally bankrupt government. A government that has proved, with this Budget, that it no longer cares for people of Singapore but for its own political longevity."

Below is a comparison of the PAP's Budget and the SDP's Shadow Budget on key points:

 

Growth Dividend and GST

PAP's Budget

SDP's Shadow Budget

The Budget will give every voter between $600-$800. If we take the average of $700 per person, an average family of four (two adults and two children) will received $1,400. That works out to be $116 per month.

But based on a standard basket of goods, this family would spend about $2,570 a month at today's prices. They would pay $180 of GST at 7%.

The PAP collects $180 in GST and gives back $116. Not a bad deal for the Government.

And remember: While the Growth dividend is a one-time handout, Singaporeans have to pay GST for the rest of their lives. This does not even include the probability that the GST will be raised after the next general elections.

Under the SDP plan, basic necessities are zero-rated for GST, and where non-basic items are charged 3%, and luxury items (worth $500 or more per item) at 10%.

In such a plan, the average household pays only $12 per month in GST compared to $180 presently. (This will be elaborated in a subsequent post).

This is why the SDP's Shadow Budget does not contain 'goodies' like the Growth Dividend which is basically a sugar-coated pill to make the GST poison easier to swallow. Singaporeans must not fall for this.

Instead, our proposal to cut the GST makes much more sense and helps Singaporeans keep more of their money.

Foreign workers

PAP's Budget

SDP's Shadow Budget

The PAP proposes that the Foreign Worker Levy be raised by $100 in order to discourage the indiscriminate hiring of foreign workers.

The problem with this levy is that it will hurt smaller businesses but not the big corporations which will have no problem absorbing cost increase.

In the end it will not make any difference to the number of foreigners coming into Singapore. Past increases of the levy has not made any difference.

This latest proposal is nothing but a smokescreen to make it appear that the Government is doing something about the influx of foreign workers.

Our Shadow Budget proposes the Singaporeans First Policy where Singaporeans are given priority when it comes to employment.

Employers will have to demonstrate that no Singaporeans can be found for the job that they want to hire before a non-Singaporean can be employed. This will effectively stop the indiscriminate influx of foreign workers

The SDP also calls for the Foreign Worker Levy to be equally divided between the employer and employee.

In this manner, the foreign worker's measly pay is increased and the employer saves costs; both parties benefit. 

HDB grants

PAP's Budget

SDP's Shadow Budget

The Government's Budget gives first-time, low-income HDB flat buyers a grant if they buy Build-To-Order flats.

This may sound nice but the HDB does not reveal the true cost of building the flats. A generous estimate of the cost of building each flat (labour, material and land costs) is about $100,000 per flat.

Currently, the HDB charges $300,000-$400,000 for each flat it sells. That's a whopping 200-300 percent profit that the Government pockets.

Senior civil servants have said that the HDB is a huge money-making machine for the Government. This is why the PAP continues to resist calls for the HDB to open up its accounts for public examination.

The Shadow Budget calls for HDB flats to be sold at cost. The HDB should be a zero-profit venture.

Because of the high HDB prices Singapoerans are using most of their CPF savings paying the monthly loans, leaving them little or no retirement savings.

The elderly are then told that they cannot retire because they have no income.

In the meantime, the HDB profit goes into the reserves which are used by the GIC and/or Temasek Holdings for dubious investments outside of Singapore. 

PMO and ministers' salaries

PAP's Budget

SDP's Shadow Budget

PAP's Budget continues to make the people pay for everything in Singapore. It then uses the money to pay for their leaders' lucrative but ultimately redundant positions in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

In 2010 $30 million was allocated for the salaries of all the political appointees in the PMO. In this year's Budget, the amount was increased to $34 million.

The overall expenditure estimate for the PMO was increased to $347 million from last year's $291 million.

The SDP's Shadow Budget calls for the removal of the redundant ministerial posts in the PMO. This would save tax payers about $15 million per year.

The PMO should be trimmed off all the waste and fat. With all the government ministries working to support the PM why does he need such a bloated PMO with ministers serving no useful function?

The SDP proposes that the PMO's budget be cut to $100,000 to support only the necessary programmes.

Defence

PAP's Budget

SDP's Shadow Budget

The Ministry of Defence will get a funding of $12.1 billion. This is an increase of 5.4% from $11.5 billion last year.

Of the $12.1 billion allocated, $10.5 billion or 85%, of Mindef's expenditure is allocated to one category – military expenditure. No breakdown of this category is given.

There must be more transparency in Mindef's expenditure as this will determine how its funds are used, what it is used for and whether it is used efficiently.

Our government leaders and diplomats constantly make insults and derogatory remarks of our neighbours, raising hostility and tensions as a result.

The Government then uses this as an excuse to build up our military to 'protect' Singapore.

What we need are leaders who will build good and robust relations with our neighbouring countries. In this manner, we don't have to keep increase our military expenditure.

Radio and TV licence

The Government will abolish licence fees for radio and TV.


This is the biggest joke of the Budget. There was absolutely no reason for the PAP to be collecting these fees in the first place which amounted to billions of dollars through all these years. Malaysia abolished these fees 12 years ago.

The SDP calls of the Government to refund all the households the radio and TV licence fees it collected all these years.


Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
Comments (12)
  • maxchew - First-class response to PAP's bluffology
    First class, I love these comparisons.....excellent!
    Let the truth be out, let people see the light before casting their votes in April or May 2011

    Well done SDP! Well done Dr CSJ and Dr Vincent!!!

    You guys make the PAP clowns look really small and devious!
  • quantum - Radio and TV license
    Nowadays, if they still collect such money, people can just throw away their TV and radios and switch to internet-TV and internet-radios.

    That is why they have to stop collecting. I just hope that they will not start collecting internet license.
  • isachn - Singaporeans First Policy
    These comparisons make it very easy for 'busy' people like us to read. I personally like SDP's shadow budget ideas. It was much better than PAP's budget fundamentally and better than the reform party's populist policies (citing the minimum wage policy). However, i have some concerns about Singaporeans First hiring policy.

    Does it mean the legislation is introduced to ensure that singaporeans must be hired first? If thats the case, my stand is that our economy and industries should be revamped such that Singaporeans are preferred over foreigners, and not introducing legislation that force employers to hire Singaporeans first.
  • freedomT
    Thanks SDP. With this we know that PAP has been bluffing us and deceiving us all because of power and money. They never wanted to serve us but instead want us to keep on being their slave. This is not a people's government but the people's nightmare. Our own money are being used by them for their own high life. Year by year they cheated us out of our money and even prevented us from getting our CPF. Shit to them!!! Our money, we decide on how to spend it why should they the PAP hold on to it till we are 80!!!!! We won't live that long. So I am voting for opposition not Pay & Pay. Not in my life.
  • tewniaseng
    very good effort by the SDP.Actually SDP has many talented professionals who if voted into parliament can voice out many ideas for the betterment of S'pore.
  • kkkk
    Thanks SDP??? They can only post these things online and wait for a lawsuit, they have no power to change the budget which had been passed down.

    Thanks for all the support, fellow SG keyboard braves ;)
  • stevenado - Time to change
    Singaporean must understand the change must come gradually.SDP is moving in the right direction. We must not only support but also SDP for the betterment of Singapore. Who say oppositon got no talent??? Add few more Dr.Vincent so that parliment can come alive.It is high time!!!!
  • quantum - kkkk
    Go and read your history. PAP started like this also, and there was no internet at that time. LMAO.
  • 007 Percent GST Bond - SDP electorates need to know..
    Good for SDP to publish side by side comparison.

    SDP must also inform the electorates within the constituencies it intends to contest.

    Not all of them have internet access and not all of them follow SDP website on an up to date basis.

    SDP needs to inform its electorates lest they be blinded by their greed for short term gains, and end up voting wrongly.

    Inform them before it is too late !!
  • WayangParty*
    As expected, there is absolutely no accounting of how SDP intends to raise the necessary $ to do all they want to do.

    Reduce the teacher:student ratio to 1:20 and add all the other professionals and have a drop in MOE operating budget by 5.66%??

    Increase hospital beds by 25% (accounted by the increase in developmental budget) and the associated additional health care personnel and have a drop in MOH operating budget by 5.08%??

    Don’t even dream about getting private GPs and consultants to help out in the government hospital. SDP thinks that our doctors will do “pro-bono” work on a sustainable basis??

    And of course, our dear SDP did not bother to determine how they can maintain the revenue. Perhaps CSJ intends to get sponsorship from his many foreign political investors to top up the difference?
  • Louiskoh - 预算案
    高官给预算案打分:90分
    人民满分:1000分
    答案是:不懂民生
    根本问题: 高消费生活
    解决方案:简讨 及放弃各部门高收费高利润政策
    结果: 皆大欢喜
  • shimu - about GST...
    I agree on non-taxation on daily necessity but I can't agree fully with the 3-level GST scheme proposed.

    Firstly, it seems difficult to administer. Imagine running a small shop selling various types of items. Some of which you do not charge GST, some 3%, and some 10%.

    Secondly, by using cost of goods to be gauge of whether it would be subjected to 3% or 10% (big difference) give rise to practices to split invoices into multiple smaller invoices, thereby escaping the 10%. Well, some item indeed requires breaking down of sub-items and you can't fault them so it is case by case basis which is easy to set a law/give a guideline BUT difficult to enforce.

    Finally, and perhaps the most important point is this dramatic change from the current system. Human naturally reject changes (especially confusing ones!) so to suddenly introduce 2 NEW elements: (i) No tax on necessity and (ii) staggered taxation of non-necessity based on cost of item, may be too much to bear and confusing for the general public. When this happens, you will not get high approval rate.

    Instead, I would prefer to phase such measures in 2 strategic steps. First, introduce (i) No tax on necessity. It would be simple to be understood... even to old uneducated folks... when they buy something, either it will be taxed, or not. Simple. they would then learn that hey, buying rice and sugar (just example) does not get tax! other items (non-necessity) still goes at normal GST rate. Now, if i am manning a store, pricing an item does not get a lot more complicated too. When I buy in and resell necessity. i do not get GST taxed nor will i tax buyer.

    Now, when people get used to this and see the beauty of the system taking care of the low, lower-mid income people's spenditure on necessity (i reckon few years, so say, 1 or 2 election later), then perhaps they may be ready to accept a tweak to the non-necessity part. But as i mention, for this part to takeoff it is pretty delicate as it involves the criteria to differentiate one non-necessity from another non-necessity. Using price, as suggested may or may not be a good idea. You see, price flucuates... either thro inflation/deflation or thro supply/demand cycle. Today, it cost $510... damn, i paid 10% tax. next week, price went down to $490. My friend paid 3%tax... den everyone rush to buy... consequently it went to $530... see the problem there? It may be wiser to differentiate by item types instead. A laptop is a laptop today... and so will it be next month. Well, the product type don't flucuates like price, which is good, but then the tricky part is determining which falls under the 3% non-necessity and which falls in the 10% necessity? A mobile phone is... 3%?... but, a diamond studded mobile phone is also 3%?? Point is, this second part on differentiating non-necessity is a verry tricky part, both in setting the rule, as well as policing it, so i prefer SDP concentrate on pushing the (i) No tax for necessity first.

    Putting forth a shaky proposal leaves doors for PAP to challenge. It doesn't matter if the questions raised were constructive or not... all the public will perceive (our mass-media may help take care of that) will be SDP proposal is "questionable". That's all it need to bring you down.

    Just my 2cents. Wish SDP success in bringing change to our country soon.
Please login or register to post your comments.
 

Act Now

Please Donate
More options to donate
 

The SDP National Healthcare Plan

SDP Publictaions

Magazine Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here


                        pdf link

minsal
pdf
link

 

Danny the Democracy Bear

Now available online here!

 
Banner
Banner

Awesome Words

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Lao-Tze
Banner

News feeds

Singapore Democrat News
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack