The debate for Budget 2024 has begun, and let’s just say the Opposition is supporting it as well. Because why wouldn’t they? It is a bold and progressive Budget with something for everyone, which nobody in good conscience can object to. But as MPs from both sides of the house throw out suggestions in Parliament, three things the Opposition said have stood out. Here is a quick rundown of why they are unwise, unrealistic or just plain mistaken.
LO Pritam Singh: Forward Singapore is an unintended admission that the 5Cs are unattainable to most
This is a sad spin of affairs coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who had the honour of kicking off with the maiden speech for the Budget 2024 debates. Deep down, Mr Singh probably understands the rationale behind Forward SG. And yet, the Opposition in him would be loath to agree, which might explain why a movement meant to build consensus is flipped into an insinuation of governmental failure.
The reality is that Forward SG was born out of a recognition that there will be different definitions of success in an increasingly diverse society. To prove his point, Mr Singh liberally stretched a recent survey on financial wellness to depict Singaporeans as disgruntled individuals whose dreams of the 5Cs are crushed by the state. But what he missed out on were the studies that show how placing high importance on money and material goods is linked to poorer personal well-being. So, when it suits them, the WP is suddenly in favour of chasing the 5Cs and forgetting about a more healthy, compassionate and inclusive society.
In the end, Forward SG is about building a new social compact and breaking down the barriers that hold us back. It is an acknowledgement of a new Singapore dream where the 5Cs – cash, car, credit card, condominium and a country club membership, are no longer held as the gold standard of happiness. Therefore, instead of viewing the 5Cs as unattainable and a holy quintuplet of success, it would be wiser for the LO to recognise that a younger generation of Singaporeans has simply moved on in search of fulfilment elsewhere. And it is one that may (or may not) involve the 5Cs.
NCMP Hazel Poa: Government should exempt a list of basic necessities from GST
Now, this idea is hardly new. In fact, one can be sure that any government implementing such a scheme would likely receive plenty of brownie points from a public weary of the cost of living. But if the suggestion is genius in its simplicity, why won’t the government do it?
The thing is, there is a catch. It is relatively easy to pick a basket of goods and declare them as basic necessities. Rice, toilet rolls, and even perfume (something MP Jamus Lim from the Worker’s Party deemed a basic need because of our humid climate) come to mind. But after that, it is a slippery slope of no return. Who gets to decide what is essential?
Take milk, for instance. It certainly qualifies as a staple food. Except lactose-intolerant individuals are likely to think otherwise and cry foul, insisting that oat and soy milk be classified as essentials as well since it’s not fair to punish people for their allergies. Such a list will go on, longer than Celine Dion belting out the Titanic theme song. Therefore, if the Government were to take up Ms Poa’s suggestion, Singapore would only end up with a burgeoning bureaucracy – one where public money is used to fund a department that looks into what counts as a basic necessity.
Moreover, it makes more economic sense for the Government to run a broad-based GST system. One which involves disbursing GST vouchers and absorbing the GST for healthcare to help lower and middle-income groups. After all, exempting basic necessities from GST could end up benefiting the wealthy, who could well afford their rice and toilet rolls.
NCMP Leong Mun Wai: PSP policies would end the need for handouts and empower individuals
With typical gusto, Mr Leong was adamant that the PAP had concocted a complicated web of schemes that breeds dependency. Meanwhile, policies by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) that empower Singaporeans are disregarded.
Mr Leong is wrong on both fronts. Firstly, the patchwork of vouchers and top-ups Mr Leong poured scorn on are part of a comprehensive package to tide Singaporeans through tough times. After all, the aim of the PAP has always been to create good jobs and empower Singaporeans through productivity-fuelled wage growth. Recent Budget announcements of a $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit for mid-career workers and an ITE Progression Award illustrate this resolve.
As for the assortment of hare-brained schemes the PSP continues to push for, it is safe to say that they are ignored because of their potential pitfalls. Why is the PAP’s Progressive Wage Model a superior system to a Living Wage proposed by the PSP? That is because the latter is effectively a blanket minimum wage that drives up business costs without an increase in output. How is such a system incentivising Singaporeans to better themselves? Similarly, the Affordable Homes Scheme might negate the need for housing grants by selling flats without considering land costs. However, what happens when sellers cannot pay back the land costs to the government when they need to sell their flat should circumstances change? To date, the PSP has no solution. In fact, for someone who has been wanting to raid the reserves and sell massively under-priced public flats without incorporating land costs upfront, it is both strange and ironic that Mr Leong would raise the worry about creating dependency among Singaporeans
In the end, we are reminded of an impassioned speech PAP MP Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok SMC) gave during the Budget 2024 debate. On the dangers of falling prey to populism, Mr Murali said, “Populism in action lures people with the promise of easy money, soft compromises and zero trade-offs…it is not always easy to see through grandstanding rhetoric and recognise opportunism in its true face.”
And judging by the narrative and suggestions being spun by our Opposition members, it would seem that the “strong” populism and “seductive form of divisive politics” described by Mr Murali are already taking root in our political landscape.
Photo Source: Singapore Parliament/ MCI via YouTube
