http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_333726.html
WHY dip into the past reserves to fund this year's budget spending when the Government has substantial current funds to draw on?
This question was raised by Workers' Party leader Low Thia Khiang in his speech during the debate on the Budget statement in Parliament on Tuesday.
While he welcomed the initiatives in this year's Budget to help businesses stay afloat and Singaporeans to keep their jobs, Mr Low said he was 'surprised that the Government had chosen to take the 'unusual' and unprecedented step of asking the President for approval to draw down $4.9 billion from the past reserves to support part of the $20.5 billion Resilience Package.
Said Mr Low, who is MP for Hougang: 'The Finance Minister, in his Budget speech on Jan 22, said that the Govenrment has sufficient savings built up during this term of Government to fund the measures we're taking and the resulting Budget deficit.
'I would like to know why the Government is using the reserves to fund the Resilience Package when it has more than enough money in the current reserves to do so. What is wrong with waiting till new initiatives are needed and the current reserves are insufficient to fund them before asking for the use of the past reserves?' he asked.
'Past reserves are supposed to be protected by a two-key system. The Government holds one key while the President holds the second key. But the speed at which these two-key systems can unlock the past reserves is too fast for comfort.
'I'd like to know when was the request for the $4.9 billion draw-down made, how long did it take the President to give the in-principle approval, does the President or the Council of Presidential Advisers know for certain what the Government intends to do with its substantial current reserves before allowing it to draw down on past reserves?
'The Finance Minister has stated that this draw-down on reserves is to pre-empt the severe consequences that this economic crisis could have for our economy and society. Can a pre-emptive spending rationale be a compelling reason for the President to unlock the reserves?
'The unlocking of reserves as witnessed by this House in the past three, four months is fast becoming like a non-event. Surely Singaporeans deserve to know the full rationale of the draw down by the Government despite having a healthy kitty.'
Mr Low also criticised the Jobs Credit scheme, saying it will indirectly favour big companies which may still be profitable and have no intention of retrenching workers.
'Are we using our reserves to increase the profits of profitable companies in this downturn,' he asked, citing the $6.8 million annual cash grant Sheng Siong supermarket will get under the scheme, which pays employers a cash grant of 12 per cent of the first $2,500 of a worker's wage to keep him on the payroll.
He also said the $2.6 billion, or 12.7 per cent of $20.5 billion budget, earmarked to help needy families, does not go far enough to help retrenched Singaporeans.
[COLOR=_______]'This is not a decisive, pro-family budget for an economy that is expecting retrenchment numbers to surpass the 29,000 level of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Why is the Government not making more provision in the Budget to help this group of people?'[/COLOR] added Mr Low, urging the Government to look into more ways to help jobless Singaporeans and their families.
WHY dip into the past reserves to fund this year's budget spending when the Government has substantial current funds to draw on?
This question was raised by Workers' Party leader Low Thia Khiang in his speech during the debate on the Budget statement in Parliament on Tuesday.
While he welcomed the initiatives in this year's Budget to help businesses stay afloat and Singaporeans to keep their jobs, Mr Low said he was 'surprised that the Government had chosen to take the 'unusual' and unprecedented step of asking the President for approval to draw down $4.9 billion from the past reserves to support part of the $20.5 billion Resilience Package.
Said Mr Low, who is MP for Hougang: 'The Finance Minister, in his Budget speech on Jan 22, said that the Govenrment has sufficient savings built up during this term of Government to fund the measures we're taking and the resulting Budget deficit.
'I would like to know why the Government is using the reserves to fund the Resilience Package when it has more than enough money in the current reserves to do so. What is wrong with waiting till new initiatives are needed and the current reserves are insufficient to fund them before asking for the use of the past reserves?' he asked.
'Past reserves are supposed to be protected by a two-key system. The Government holds one key while the President holds the second key. But the speed at which these two-key systems can unlock the past reserves is too fast for comfort.
'I'd like to know when was the request for the $4.9 billion draw-down made, how long did it take the President to give the in-principle approval, does the President or the Council of Presidential Advisers know for certain what the Government intends to do with its substantial current reserves before allowing it to draw down on past reserves?
'The Finance Minister has stated that this draw-down on reserves is to pre-empt the severe consequences that this economic crisis could have for our economy and society. Can a pre-emptive spending rationale be a compelling reason for the President to unlock the reserves?
'The unlocking of reserves as witnessed by this House in the past three, four months is fast becoming like a non-event. Surely Singaporeans deserve to know the full rationale of the draw down by the Government despite having a healthy kitty.'
Mr Low also criticised the Jobs Credit scheme, saying it will indirectly favour big companies which may still be profitable and have no intention of retrenching workers.
'Are we using our reserves to increase the profits of profitable companies in this downturn,' he asked, citing the $6.8 million annual cash grant Sheng Siong supermarket will get under the scheme, which pays employers a cash grant of 12 per cent of the first $2,500 of a worker's wage to keep him on the payroll.
He also said the $2.6 billion, or 12.7 per cent of $20.5 billion budget, earmarked to help needy families, does not go far enough to help retrenched Singaporeans.
[COLOR=_______]'This is not a decisive, pro-family budget for an economy that is expecting retrenchment numbers to surpass the 29,000 level of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Why is the Government not making more provision in the Budget to help this group of people?'[/COLOR] added Mr Low, urging the Government to look into more ways to help jobless Singaporeans and their families.
