NSP's Response to Budget 2012
The National Solidarity Party welcomes most of the measures announced in the Government’s budget statement on the 17th of February 2012.
The statement underscores the fact that the government has heard the electorate and taken steps to address some of their concerns, in particular, lowering our dependence on the foreign workforce, greater assistance to the elderly, the disabled and the lower-incomed, and expanding the capacity of our public transport and public hospitals.
There are however three areas that we felt were inadequately addressed in the budget statement.
Firstly, there continues to be an absence of a population plan for Singapore, making it difficult to assess the adequacy of the proposed expansion in capacity for buses and hospitals, and in fact, many of the Government’s plans. The Ministry of Manpower should regulate the population growth target at no more than 50,000 (which is double the 23,000 identified as our shortfall of babies) per year over the next 10 years. Over the last 10 years, Singapore’s population growth was 100,000 per year. The population growth target should be reviewed every 3 years and adjusted according to the needs of Singapore. Hong Kong, for example, which has a land space of more than 50% than that of Singapore, has a population growth target of 35,000 annually.
Secondly, while the budget statement recognized the trend of a greying population in Singapore and the social responsibilities of the Government towards the elderly by introducing a slew of measures to take better care of older Singaporeans, it failed to introduce any measure to address the problem of the falling total fertility rate (TFR). Our falling TFR is by far one of the most important issues facing the Government. For a “Budget for our future”, it is very disappointing that the budget statement failed to mention any initiatives to continue battling this problem. Having failed once or twice before is no excuse for giving up. We hope that Parliament will debate over this matter and develop fiscally supportable proposals in the coming days.
Thirdly, while this budget has been very generous towards the elderly, we would really like to see greater flexibility in the withdrawal of CPF funds in certain circumstances, for example, those aged above 55 and unemployed, and those diagnosed with terminal illnesses like cancer and need the CPF funds for treatment. The gradual raising of the CPF withdrawal age has created real difficulties for some Singaporeans who really need their money that is sitting in the CPF account. While we agree with the general principle that people need to save up for their retirement, there are always circumstances when departing from the principle is the sensible thing to do.
In addition, we reiterate our earlier proposal to allow further competition in the operation of bus services. Allowing more entrants into the market will bring more capital and capacity. This will make it unnecessary for taxpayers to foot the full $1.1bn bill to increase the bus capacity of private bus operators.
Overall, however, this is a well balanced budget, hard-nosed in some areas and compassionate in others. We welcome the greater emphasis in fostering a more inclusive society and the slew of measures introduced to make life better for Singaporeans. We hope that more could be done in future budgets.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee
The National Solidarity Party welcomes most of the measures announced in the Government’s budget statement on the 17th of February 2012.
The statement underscores the fact that the government has heard the electorate and taken steps to address some of their concerns, in particular, lowering our dependence on the foreign workforce, greater assistance to the elderly, the disabled and the lower-incomed, and expanding the capacity of our public transport and public hospitals.
There are however three areas that we felt were inadequately addressed in the budget statement.
Firstly, there continues to be an absence of a population plan for Singapore, making it difficult to assess the adequacy of the proposed expansion in capacity for buses and hospitals, and in fact, many of the Government’s plans. The Ministry of Manpower should regulate the population growth target at no more than 50,000 (which is double the 23,000 identified as our shortfall of babies) per year over the next 10 years. Over the last 10 years, Singapore’s population growth was 100,000 per year. The population growth target should be reviewed every 3 years and adjusted according to the needs of Singapore. Hong Kong, for example, which has a land space of more than 50% than that of Singapore, has a population growth target of 35,000 annually.
Secondly, while the budget statement recognized the trend of a greying population in Singapore and the social responsibilities of the Government towards the elderly by introducing a slew of measures to take better care of older Singaporeans, it failed to introduce any measure to address the problem of the falling total fertility rate (TFR). Our falling TFR is by far one of the most important issues facing the Government. For a “Budget for our future”, it is very disappointing that the budget statement failed to mention any initiatives to continue battling this problem. Having failed once or twice before is no excuse for giving up. We hope that Parliament will debate over this matter and develop fiscally supportable proposals in the coming days.
Thirdly, while this budget has been very generous towards the elderly, we would really like to see greater flexibility in the withdrawal of CPF funds in certain circumstances, for example, those aged above 55 and unemployed, and those diagnosed with terminal illnesses like cancer and need the CPF funds for treatment. The gradual raising of the CPF withdrawal age has created real difficulties for some Singaporeans who really need their money that is sitting in the CPF account. While we agree with the general principle that people need to save up for their retirement, there are always circumstances when departing from the principle is the sensible thing to do.
In addition, we reiterate our earlier proposal to allow further competition in the operation of bus services. Allowing more entrants into the market will bring more capital and capacity. This will make it unnecessary for taxpayers to foot the full $1.1bn bill to increase the bus capacity of private bus operators.
Overall, however, this is a well balanced budget, hard-nosed in some areas and compassionate in others. We welcome the greater emphasis in fostering a more inclusive society and the slew of measures introduced to make life better for Singaporeans. We hope that more could be done in future budgets.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee
