If Statutory Boards are allowed to keep so much of Public Funds in their individual holdings, how much bigger is our Reserves that remains unaccounted to Singaporeans - either to the Elected President or to the Singapore Parliament ?
What is the net growth made to the Reserves Holdings, or losses made from which lessons could be drawn for the future ?
Can the Finance Ministry pronouncement of budget deficits be believed, when Parliamentary Committees formed by Members of the Ruling Party has been able to discern opportunities to balance the budget ? 32 stat boards holding on to $33b surpluses Parliamentary committee calls for review to see if the boards' surpluses are excessive and should be returned to Govt By Audrey Tan WHILE Singapore's Budget is predicted to fall short by $2.2 billion, 32 cash-rich statutory boards could more than fill the gap: They are sitting on accumulated surpluses of at least $33.48 billion.
If that cash hoard was returned to the Government, it would more than comfortably fund this year's projected deficit about 15 times over.
These figures were released on Tuesday by the Estimates Committee, which urged the Government to review the boards' surpluses to see if they were excessive.
If they were, then government ministries should see if there was any reason for their statutory boards to hold on to the money, the eight-member committee suggested in its report to the House on Monday.
It noted that some statutory boards have 'relatively high' surpluses even as the Government continues to run a Budget deficit for a third consecutive year.
If the panel's suggestions are adopted, the surpluses are likely to be whittled down, said economists at Standard Chartered Bank yesterday.
Amid news that the boards have been quietly accumulating $33 billion, it also turns out that some have already spread their cash around.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore have returned $2.5 billion and $165 million respectively since 2000, the Finance Ministry said in a reply to the committee's report.
It said this in agreeing with the panel's suggestion that where surpluses appeared excessive, the money should be returned to the Government.
But don't expect all the $33 billion to be siphoned off for other government needs.
The ministry noted that many of the bigger boards are self-funded and use their accumulated surpluses to finance their operations and development projects.
For example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore needs its reserves to perform its role, while most of JTC Corporation's surpluses are re-invested in land for redevelopment purposes.
On the issue of trimming surpluses, Standard Chartered economist Joseph Tan said yesterday that the Government could cut the annual budgets of these statutory boards, thereby reducing its own overall operating expenditure.
'This will help the Government constrain any deficit formation when it cuts the overall corporate and personal income tax rates to 20 per cent for the Year of Assessment 2005,' he said.
Instead of subjecting themselves to scrutiny by the Finance Ministry, the statutory boards could cut their fees and charges to voluntarily reduce their surpluses, he added. This would reduce the overall cost of doing business in Singapore.
In its report, the committee had asked if the Government had adequate policies, guidelines and review processes to ensure that excessive surpluses were not left to keep compounding, or wasted on extravagant projects.
TOO MUCH CASH ?Statutory board Accumulated Surplus (FY 2002) Monetary Authority of Singapore $13.6 billion
Jurong Town Corporation $9.1 billion
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore $2.5 billion
Central Provident Fund $1.6 billion
Urban Redevelopment Authority $1.3 billion
Public Utilities Board $1.2 billion
Singapore Labour Foundation $662.9 million
Singapore Totalisator Board $589.8 million
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore $573.9 million
Land Transport Authority $426.7 million
Source: ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
Straits Times - Thursday Edition 22 January 2003
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,231299,00.html?