Govt far richer than it makes itself out to be - Steve Chia
-
Govt far richer than it makes itself out to be, says Steve Chia
By Sue-Ann Chia
Straits Times, 1 March 2006
THE Government is misleading Singaporeans on the true state of its finances, charged Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia yesterday.
It is actually far richer than it has made itself out to be, he said, continuing the opposition's attack on the Government's fiscal poliicy. His accusation comes a day after opposition MP Low Thia Khiang pressed the Government to be more transparent in its Budget accounting .
At issue is the way the Government classifies revenue. Its definition of revenue does not include capital receipts such as from one-off sale of land and capital good. Nor does it include all net investment income (NII).
This conservative accounting practice has led economists to argue that Singapore's fiscal position is actually much stronger than it appears.
Mr Chia pointed out that up to half the NII can be used within a government's five-year term, while the other half has to be locked away as long-term reserves.
But the Government decided to use only 33 per cnet. "Why did it not use up all the 50 per cent allowed ? " he asked.
The Government had projected a deficit of $2.86 billion this year, after giving away $2.6 billion in dividends and bonuses to Singaporeans.
But Mr Chia argued that when capital receipts and 50 per cent of net investment income are included, the Government actually enjoys a surplus of $5.1 billion this year.
When capital receipts and NII are included, the total surpluses chalked up over the last few years is an "obscene total" of at least $19 billion sitting in the Consolidated Fund, waiting to be transferred to the national reserves.
"That is a lot of money. More importantly, that money has not been reflected in the Budget. It gives a misleading picture of our Government's fiscal position," he said.
He noted that the Finance Ministry had previously explained that these capital receipts were "lumpy and uncertain" and hence should not be counted on to fund regular expenditure.
But not reflecting such big amounts in the Budget was more misleading to the public than reflecting it, he argued.
"I had been misled. The public had been misled. Everyone had been misled to think the Government had been very tight these last four years, and we will enter FY2006 with a huge deficit. But that is not true at all."
The $19 billion surplus should be put to good use, he said. "The Government should scrap - or at least drastically reduce - the water conservation tax, the radio and TV licence fees, and the foreign domestic worker levy. They can afford to, and they should, " he argued.
But People's Action Party MPs were swift to rebut Mr Chia, the secretary-general of the opposition National Solidarity Party.
Dr Ong Chi Chung, (Jurong GRC) said: "I heard with amazement Mr Chia's call to abolish and lower taxes, and at the same time, advocating more and more giveaways and freebies. Now, who will pay for all this ? Without sufficient taxes and revenues, such things cannot be sustained. It is, in my mind, a recipe for disaster."
Dr John Cheng (Hong Kah GRC) also took issue with Mr Chia's Budget analysis. He reiterated the Government's position that the proceeds from government land sales should go into long-term reserves. "Otherwise, a rougue government, with the election promise to give away money, can come in easily to sell land and give the money to peopl," he pointed out, adding: "I think either Mr Chia does not understand what constitiutes reserves and the protection of it, or he is indeed misleading people himself." -
old news...didn't you read the refute by the PM?
pls use updated figures/news if u wanna bash the current ruling party. -
Old news ? It was raised and published on 1 March 2006.Originally posted by tiggersgd:old news...didn't you read the refute by the PM? pls use updated figures/news if u wanna bash the current ruling party.
Is it any wonder that clever accounting practices has been practised by the Government a.k.a the Ruling Political Party, moving and shuttling surplus like in some back-street shell game that even the persistency of an Elected President cannot even access ?
The more amazing reading from this Straits Times report is the feeble response given by two MP - with doctorate degree - giving their unthinking responses to the real issues that have been raised by Steve Chia, but simply derided him in the standard tactic of painting the Opposition as some deluded and irresponsible persons spending the hard earned money.
Is it any wonder that the surplus has not been transferred into the national reserves but kept in a Consolidated Fund as surplus to be managed by Temasek and GIC ?
From the website of the Ministry of Finance, the following explanations were exracted with regards to the :
treatment of NII and Budget Surplus.
NII Contribution has been reclassified as a separate item to derive the Budget Surplus/Deficit position since FY2004.
There is a limit to the amount of NII that can be used as operating revenues by the current government because the Constitution requires the government to protect at least 50% of the NII earned from past reserves.
This protected amount is safeguarded together with the accumulated reserves earned over the previous terms of government.
These reserves can only be used with the approval of the President.
Q2: What happens to the Singapore Government's budget surplus?
A: The government's surplus is managed mainly by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings. -
I don't see what is the issue here. If the govt truely wants to hide its wealth, how could Steve Chia find out?
I think its just a matter of accounting definitions. If you know how to read it, you will understand. Its the same for all finacial reports. Nothing was hidden. -
Originally posted by Yi Peng:
How many Singaporeans - trained professionals included - have this piece of information on hand ?
I don't see what is the issue here. If the govt truely wants to hide its wealth, how could Steve Chia find out?
I think its just a matter of accounting definitions. If you know how to read it, you will understand. Its the same for all finacial reports. Nothing was hidden.
Is it a simple matter of "accounting definitions" or "a shell game of moving excess funds" ?
When $19 billion has been accumulated over so many years, with this amount purposefully left out of the Budget, and the population misled to believe that the Government is into Budget deficit - who is to be held accountable when this amount is loss through careless investment by the GIC and Temasek ?
Is it not amazing that on one part the Ruling Party is afraid that any other political party that step into the seat of Government will be a rogue government, and will make it so easy to access this $19 billion that is kept in the Consolidated Funds instead of being transferred to the National Reserves; and yet on the other part, will allow themselves a "free hand" to use the funds as it pleases - either as handout to the citizens, or to fund the foreign financial adventures of the "Power of One" ? -
I don't think there was any attempt to deceive. The accounting definitions and rules never changed all these years. Its nothing new and like I said, its the same for all financial statements, no different.
-
Originally posted by Yi Peng:
Rules has never change all these years, but "cleverly bent or re-interpreted" to suit the convenience of the Government a.k.a the Ruling Party.
I don't think there was any attempt to deceive. The accounting definitions and rules never changed all these years. Its nothing new and like I said, its the same for all financial statements, no different.
The accounting definitions help to bury the large amount of accumulated funds into a mountain of data and inocuous sounding terms that will take "52 man years" to unravelled - ( as was told to the late President Ong Teng Cheong ) .
As to whether there was any attempt to deceve - perhaps you may wish to revisit the statements made by Steve Chia in Parliament that was reported in this opening post.
Surprisingly, both MPs - Dr Ong and Dr John Cheng - from the Ruling Party did not make any attempt to defend this accusation of deception. -
Just like the unemployment figures.
Different figures as reported by different newspapers.
-
as u have said its published on 1 march and PM refuted it with TODAY published it on 2 march. didn't u read that? else i believe the straits times have it published on 2 march as well....isn't that considered old news?
let me quote TODAY extracted from PM's speech during the budget debate
""these numbers are all incorrect. we do not have $13.42 billion of capital receipts to draw on as reported by TODAY, let alone the $19 billion by steve chia." mr lee said"
this of course is considered old news to me as the date is 3 march now. -
what's there to be surprised abt when the PM himself defended and corrected the error?Originally posted by Atobe:Rules has never change all these years, but "cleverly bent or re-interpreted" to suit the convenience of the Government a.k.a the Ruling Party.
The accounting definitions help to bury the large amount of accumulated funds into a mountain of data and inocuous sounding terms that will take "52 man years" to unravelled - ( as was told to the late President Ong Teng Cheong ) .
As to whether there was any attempt to deceve - perhaps you may wish to revisit the statements made by Steve Chia in Parliament that was reported in this opening post.
Surprisingly, both MPs - Dr Ong and Dr John Cheng - from the Ruling Party did not make any attempt to defend this accusation of deception.
it will be more of a surprise if and when the PM don't even say anything at all. -
Originally posted by charlize:Just like the unemployment figures.
Different figures as reported by different newspapers. so much for media reports 
-
Originally posted by tiggersgd:
No I do not touch TODAY - for its shallow reporting, and is as much a mouthpiece of the Government as the Straits Times, and was purposefully designed to be given away FREE to be grabbed by Singaporeans who want everything FREE.
as u have said its published on 1 march and PM refuted it with TODAY published it on 2 march. didn't u read that? else i believe the straits times have it published on 2 march as well....isn't that considered old news?
let me quote TODAY extracted from PM's speech during the budget debate
""these numbers are all incorrect. we do not have $13.42 billion of capital receipts to draw on as reported by TODAY, let alone the $19 billion by steve chia." mr lee said"
this of course is considered old news to me as the date is 3 march now.
TODAY is designed to disseminate news in the SIMPLEST MANNER for the AEVERAGE SINGAPOREANS - who glance at issues WITHOUT THINKING, and who are not too concerned with the DEEPER POLITICAL and ECONOMIC ISSUES.
Did PM LHL addressed the bigger issues brought up by Steve Chia concerning the NII and Consolidated Funds NOT being included in the Budget ?
Why did he simply make a simple dismissive statement to ridicule Steve Chia ?
It has been a tactical ruse practised into a perfect art by the Ruling Political Party - to quickly address the issue at a tangent, and move off in a new trajectory by attacking the person who raised the subject.
Only two lines against Steve Chia amidst a whole load of wool being puff at the Workers Party.
Low and Chia reproached by Mr Lee for trying to 'score political points'
Tor Ching Li
[email protected]
PRIME Minister and Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong turned up the heat on the Opposition yesterday. Not only did he criticise the Workers' Party (WP) "time bombs" and manifesto in his round-up speech, Mr Lee also rebuked both WP chief Low Thia Khiang and Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia.
.
The former was chided for his "selective memory" and sole interest in "scoring political points", and the latter was portrayed as a bank raider for his suggestions for tax cuts and fee waivers.
.
Responding to Mr Low's question as to why the Government could incur a spending deficit of $2.9 billion while the WP's suggestion for increased education and healthcare expenditure was labelled "fiscally irresponsible", Mr Lee said the problem lay in the call for "an unconditional needs-based welfare safety net" in the WP's manifesto.
.
"In contrast, this Government lives within its means, without neglecting its obligations to lower income Singaporeans," he said.
.
While explaining that the Government's capital receipts from the statutory boards were sufficient to fund the $2.6 billion Progress Package without drawing on past reserves or burdening taxpayers, he went on to say: "(Mr Chia) wants to raid the bank — he proposed cutting all sorts of taxes and fees and (wants to) just declare that Christmas has arrived."
.
Mr Lee also pointed out that Mr Low chose to forget the $7.8 billion worth of assistance measures doled out by the Government since 2001. Instead, he said, Mr Low had accused the Government of raising the GST after the last elections.
.
"But before we raised the GST, we had also provided $2.7 billion worth of Economic Restructuring Shares to help Singaporeans cope," Mr Lee said. Visibly irked, he then launched into a scathing dose of Latin: "Mr Low has, to say in Latin, suppressio veri suggestio falsi — suppressed the truth while suggesting what is false!"
.
Pointing out that Mr Low had nothing constructive to say about the Progress Package — unlike Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong — Mr Lee said this "shows he is not really interested in whether Singaporeans are getting the help they need, only in scoring political points".
.
"Why make a speech to score political points?" he asked Mr Low. "There will be an opportunity to do so before the next General Elections."
.
But both Mr Low and Mr Chia persisted with their concerns during clarification time. Mr Chia asked which chapter or clause in the Constitution states that land sales go into the reserves and not the budget position. Mr Low questioned the Government's "ad hoc" help only in times of Budget surpluses — before being put down by Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House Wong Kan Seng for a "clarification" that seemed more like a speech.
.
In response to Mr Chia, Mr Lee pointed to a White Paper that states land sales are to be locked up as past reserves and cannot be touched. Still, Mr Chia told Today there was a lack of transparency where national reserves were concerned.
.
"I did not say money should be given out freely. I'm trying to say that if there is a lot of money then the spending on the people should reflect it," he said.
.
More than just 2 days
.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng yesterday revealed to the House that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee had completed its report.
.
It is now with the Prime Minister, and a copy would be sent to the MPs within the week.
.
The report would map out the wards and the number of MPs for each constituency and reveal if any constituencies are absorbed into others or if any new ones are formed. It is usually released just before the polls are called.
.
Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia, who is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party, wanted to know how long the campaigning period for the coming General Election will be, and if there would be "at least three months" between the release of the boundaries report and the dissolution of Parliament — which precedes the issuance of the writ of election.
.
In response, Mr Wong said: "I am very certain what was experienced in 2001, where there were only two days between the publication of the electoral boundary report and the dissolution of Parliament, will not happen this time.
.
"But if the Prime Minister decides and when he decides to have the election and dissolve Parliament, I think all of us will know of it." Low and Chia reproached by Mr Lee for trying to 'score political points' -
oh...u r so DEEP into the DEEPER POLITICAL and ECONOMIC ISSUES that YOU DO NOT SEE WHAT COMMONERS SEE? then what do you stand for?Originally posted by Atobe:No I do not touch TODAY - for its shallow reporting, and is as much a mouthpiece of the Government as the Straits Times, and was purposefully designed to be given away FREE to be grabbed by Singaporeans who want everything FREE.
TODAY is designed to disseminate news in the SIMPLEST MANNER for the AEVERAGE SINGAPOREANS - who glance at issues WITHOUT THINKING, and who are not too concerned with the DEEPER POLITICAL and ECONOMIC ISSUES.
FREE?? I hope u dun take the financial handouts by the ruling party bcos its FREE (no strings attached...not even asking you to vote to them)
AVERAGE SINGAPOREANS at least CAN SPELL BETTER THAN so call, so self-idolised, so full of one self person LIKE U
glance at issues WITHOUT THINKING? ha! and WHO is the ONE (oh high and mighty ONE) that posts past issues of media reportings and from where?!!! none other than YOU SAID to be supporters of ruling party, the SPH - The Straits Times.
and please, even CEOs of BIG corporations are reading TODAY so what has YOU got to say of that when YOU are not even a BIGGER FRY than the smallest to begin with. -
and regards to shallow-ness, your shallow highness, its evident that NC MP steve chia did not get his figures right before blasting in Parliament and thus get blasted instead.
poor oppositions...i pity the oppositions MP LOW and MP CHAM. they fought hard and well to keep their share but its their fellow shallowness that sabo-ed them time and time again during the elections/Parliament hearings.
and some shallow people will still support this steve chia's sayings in this forum. anymore? please don't go off topic like you always do in other threads AGAIN -
Spelling ? Self-idolatory ? "Full of one self" ? - are you not referring to the First Family with the "POWER OF ONE" - whom presumably you are so defensive about ?Originally posted by tiggersgd:
oh...u r so DEEP into the DEEPER POLITICAL and ECONOMIC ISSUES that YOU DO NOT SEE WHAT COMMONERS SEE? then what do you stand for? [/quote]
So the hornets is busted with some honesty ? .
You see what you only wish to see ? .
FREE?? I hope u dun take the financial handouts by the ruling party bcos its FREE (no strings attached...not even asking you to vote to them)FREE FINANCIAL HANDOUTS BY THE RULING PARTY ?
This certainly show how much wool have been swallowed by those who accept the "FREE HANDOUTS" with so much gullibility.
Where do you think those "FREE" handouts come from, and which the Ruling Party is making such a "big party" by claiming political points for giving it out so "FREEEELEELY" ? .
AVERAGE SINGAPOREANS at least CAN SPELL BETTER THAN so call, so self-idolised, so full of one self person LIKE U 
[quote]
glance at issues WITHOUT THINKING? ha! and WHO is the ONE (oh high and mighty ONE) that posts past issues of media reportings and from where?!!! none other than YOU SAID to be supporters of ruling party, the SPH - The Straits Times. The difference in quoting from government 'mouthpieces' is one that is made out of sheer gullibility without questions asked - since no thought process is given; and one that is quoted as a referral in a matter that raised questions as a result of clear and careful thinking.
Agitated emotions will not help in clear thinking and will lead to useless digression from the core subject that is at hand. .
Can we believe you that even CEOs of BIG corporation are reading TODAY ?
and please, even CEOs of BIG corporations are reading TODAY so what has YOU got to say of that when YOU are not even a BIGGER FRY than the smallest to begin with.
Where are copies of TODAY stacked up ?
Those CEOs of BIG corporations are probably checking if the Company's advertisements have been well placed to tempt those easily temptible and gullible FREEBIE Singaporeans to their advert, more then their interest in the basic and simplistic reporting of news.
If a serious reader was to check the Straits Times reporting with the same handling of news as printed in TODAY, the difference in quality of report and subject treatment can be quickly picked up.
How can we impress this nuance on one who holds TODAY in such high regard - when perhaps nothing else is read due to some budget constraints ?
You should not worry too much, PAPa will give more "FREEBIES" as soon as the General Elections is announced; it will be a field day of character assassination to fill the pages and wipe other thoughts out of the minds of simple slavish Singaporeans. -
haiz...i still hope you will not take the financial handout.
you just like to bash the ruling party and for whose sake are you speaking out? if you are truely so capable, do join the opposition and make some sense over at that camp.
otherwise, thank for your comments on thousands of readers of TODAY etc. it clearly showed that you are "widely read" indeed.
have a nice day in your own world of bitterness.
BYE
PS: edited to let u know that i didn't bother to read your replies. -
If you were to read the report in your TODAY - which I had extracted and place in my last post that you have responded, hopefully you will notice that the blast that PM LHL gave was NOT DIRECTED at Steve Chia. .Originally posted by tiggersgd:and regards to shallow-ness, your shallow highness, its evident that NC MP steve chia did not get his figures right before blasting in Parliament and thus get blasted instead.
poor oppositions...i pity the oppositions MP LOW and MP CHAM. they fought hard and well to keep their share but its their fellow shallowness that sabo-ed them time and time again during the elections/Parliament hearings.
and some shallow people will still support this steve chia's sayings in this forum. anymore? please don't go off topic like you always do in other threads AGAIN 
The entire report was spent on blasting Mr Low and his Workers' Party for the WP Manifesto - (PM went off topic too) - and only addressed Steve Chia in one statement. .
Even when Steve Chia rose to clarify his stated position, PM LHL DID NOT address the issue on NII or the Consolidated Funds - he merely laughed at the numbers raised, and gave an oblique comment on a purported White Paper that is NOT even a piece of Legislation. .
Some people sure give alot of credibility to the Government, the Ruling Party and TODAY. .
Is it any wonder that people get slapped over and over again, but mistaken the slap as a pat ? . -
is steve chia the one who had some scandal over some nude pictures?
-
Originally posted by tiggersgd:
Sadly, why should you be so bitter about some honesty ?
haiz...i still hope you will not take the financial handout.
you just like to bash the ruling party and for whose sake are you speaking out? if you are truely so capable, do join the opposition and make some sense over at that camp.
otherwise, thank for your comments on thousands of readers of TODAY etc. it clearly showed that you are "widely read" indeed.
have a nice day in your own world of bitterness.
BYE
Is it so hard to swallow ? .
The World is what you make out of it, mine still has a positive streak. . -
Originally posted by feelingblue:
Why equate "nudity" as "scandolous" ?
is steve chia the one who had some scandal over some nude pictures?
Were you not born naked ? -
ya...so famous.......Originally posted by feelingblue:is steve chia the one who had some scandal over some nude pictures? -
So what?Everyone do make mistake.The most important thing is after making mistake,the person who at fault are willing to admit it,there is nothing to be ashame of.Originally posted by feelingblue:is steve chia the one who had some scandal over some nude pictures?
Unlike PAP politicians,even when they make mistake,they also dont have the guts to admit n make apology.Look at Nicholl Highway collapse case,our dear former PM Goh Chok Tong hide at a side like a tortise n also never hold any minister responsible for it!!!.Basket,if this kind of thing happen in Taiwan or U.S,the minister who responsible will be kicked out already.
Also the Lees family buy condominium at discounting price,if in other democracy countries,they will be charged of corruption!!!How "noble" are our PAP politicians compare to Steve Chia? -
The nub of the issue is the govt doesn't take the money,which is a very big amount, it gains from land sale as revenue.Why?
-
to make themselves seem poorer than the truth?
-
You mean he was the one who took nude photos of himself with the maid?Originally posted by feelingblue:is steve chia the one who had some scandal over some nude pictures?
Thats a real scandal!
We should actually have more politicians like that, it will make our life in Singapore more colourful and interesting.