Public Finances

2.09 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House calls on the Government to review its current budget and reserve accumulation policies in order to help present-day Singaporeans reduce their financial burdens and improve their quality of life, while continuing to save for future generations of Singaporeans."

*The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Hazel Poa.

Last November, during the debate on the cost of living Motion raised by the Workers' Party (WP), I attributed a large part of the rising cost of living problem to the policies of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government.

Today, I will delve deeper into the Government's budget and reserve accumulation policies to justify what I have said.

The Singapore Government have put in place a good reserve accumulation system, started by the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, to facilitate the accumulation of the huge reserves we have today. However, because our reserves are not accumulated from natural resources, there is a cost to accumulating our reserves which comes from the sacrifices of the Singaporeans.

For example, much of the land reserves came from the acquisitions of land from Singaporeans at below market prices during the 1970s and 1980s, while the financial reserves are accumulated through the investment of land sales proceeds, Government surpluses and the Central Provident Board (CPF) balances of Singaporeans. Whatever the Government has accumulated in surpluses and reserves, these are the people's money, not the Government's money.

The cost of accumulating reserves is tolerable when our economy and incomes were growing rapidly. However, as our economic fundamentals change, there comes a point when the welfare of present-day Singaporeans will be hurt if we continue accumulating reserves at the same rate as we are doing now. We are of the view that the Singapore of today has gone past that point.

The cost of living crisis that we are facing now, in addition to growing social inequality, increasing mental health issues and declining total fertility rate are examples of social ills that have resulted from our economic policies.

Today, it is not unreasonable for Singaporeans to expect the Government to focus less on accumulating reserves and do more with our financial resources to address these social ills.

However, over the years, when it comes to reserves, the PAP Government's approach has been to tell Singaporeans that: one, there is no such thing as too much reserves; two, that the reserves can only be used in absolute emergencies; and three, that Singaporeans cannot be told how much reserves we have accumulated because of national security reasons.

Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that this approach does not do justice to the fact that the reserves are accumulated from the blood and sweat of Singaporeans. There is a cost to accumulating reserves. Singaporeans deserve to have a greater say over how much we are accumulating in the reserves, how we are using the reserves today and how much we are living behind for future generations of Singaporeans.

In today's debate, we will first discuss the size of our past reserves and why it need not be a secret. Then, we will examine how we can moderate the rate of reserve accumulation marginally to care for and motivate present-day Singaporeans, while continuing to accumulate more reserves for future generations of Singaporeans.

It will be befitting for me to emphasise again at this point that PSP is making proposals with neither intention to nor the effect of raiding our reserves. That has never been our approach and mindset towards this issue and neither do our proposals have that effect. In this light, I hope that this debate will focus on the substance of our proposals.

Let us start with the size of our reserves.

Mr Speaker, during this debate, we will be referring to the financial assets in the past reserves as the financial reserves and the fiscal assets in the past reserves as land reserves.

During the Budget Debate in 2021, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said that no responsible leader will reveal the size of the reserves.

PSP disagrees. We believe a responsible leader should reveal the size of the reserves for the following reasons.

First, as the collective owners of the reserves, Singaporeans deserve to have access to the precise information about our reserves, the returns and how it is being invested and managed. A clear statement by the Government on the size and performance of our financial reserves every year will go a long way to facilitate proper discussion on taxation and spending policies and to quash fake news about the insolvency of our CPF, the size of our external debt and the performances of GIC and Temasek.

There may be no real necessity for the public to know the full extent of our military capabilities. But Singaporeans would need a clear idea of the size and performance of our financial reserves as a reference point to have a constructive public debate on the Government's taxation and spending policies.

Secondly, the most effective defence against currency speculation lies not in the confidentiality of the size of our financial reserves but in the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) ensuring that the value of the Singapore dollar is in line with our economic fundamentals.

Third, there is no national security threat arising from disclosing the size of the financial reserves because it can already be estimated using publicly available information, such as the Government financial statements even though the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has claimed that the Government's total financial assets, as reflected in the Government financial statements, do not represent the size of our national reserves. My colleague Ms Hazel Poa will show the House later that we can estimate our financial reserves to be about $1.2 trillion simply by deducting the relevant liabilities from the financial assets.

While the size of the financial reserves can be estimated, an official statement is still important to put all Singaporeans on the same page. The $1.2 trillion figure for financial reserves is not a static number. It will continue to increase over time from five sources of growth.

One, official foreign reserves (OFR). OFR will continue to grow as long as there is more money flowing into than flowing out of Singapore. For example, from the end of 2019 to the end of 2022, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, MAS had accumulated new OFR from large access foreign inflows amounting to about $250 billion. This is more than six times the amount the Government has drawn down to fight the pandemic or more than two and a half times the total Government expenditure in a normal year. There were so much OFR accumulated in recent years that the Government had to set up a new mechanism, the Reserve Management Government Securities in January 2022 for MAS to transfer excess OFR to GIC.

Two, CPF balances. Ms Hazel Poa will explain in detail how the growth and investment of our CPF balances contribute to the growth of the reserves.

Three, Net Investment Returns (NIR). Currently, the financial reserves generate NIR of about $50 billion dollars a year, of which half is kept in the financial reserves and half allocated to the budget for spending in the current year which is known as the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). As our financial reserves increase and make positive returns over time, our NIR and NIRC are also expected to increase in tandem.

Four, land sales revenues. The revenue from all land sales goes directly into the reserves. I will be discussing this further later in my speech.

And, finally, five, Government budget surpluses. All any surpluses of the Government go directly to the reserves.

In summary, although not necessarily known and accepted by most Singaporeans, it is transparent to the financial markets that Singapore has approximately $1.2 trillion dollars of financial reserves, which is still growing every year and generating higher and higher investment returns each year amounting to $47 billion in fiscal year 2023. It is because of this strong financial position that PSP has opposed the goods and services tax (GST) and property tax hikes in 2023 and 2024.

When Prime Minister Lee was interviewed by the CNA documentary in August last year, he said that the biggest misconception which people have is that there is such a thing as enough and that he does not know how much reserves is enough. PSP's response to that is we are of the view that we may have reached the point of enough if we are raising taxes when Singaporeans are facing a cost of living crisis for the sake of maintaining the current rate of reserve accumulation.

PSP disagrees that we continue the accumulate reserves at the same rate when it hurts the welfare of present-day Singaporeans. The accumulation of reserves comes with costs and benefits. For too long the Government has over-emphasised the benefits but downplaying the cost.

Mr Speaker, after ascertaining the size of our financial reserves, we are now in a better position to discuss how the budget and reserve accumulation policies can be tweaked to produce better economy outcomes for Singaporeans.

In the past few years, PSP and WP had suggested various ways by which the Government can deploy more reserves to ease the burden of Singaporeans today, without compromising the welfare of future generations. First, there is a general consensus that we should not touch the principal of the past reserves. For example, if the financial reserves is $1.2 trillion, well, we should leave that alone. Secondly, both PSP and WP have made different but reasonable suggestions on ways to continue growing the reserves, but at a slower rate. For example, we have suggested that part or all of the land sales proceeds should be allocated to the yearly budget for spending. Given the land is only sold at leasehold, land sales are a recurring source of income which can be used for current spending.

Both PSP and WP have also asked for a larger share of the NIR of the financial reserves to be allocated to the yearly budget instead of raising taxes. Currently, 50% of the NIR is allocated to the budget as a NIR contribution (NIRC). WP has suggested to increase the share of the NIR are from 50% to 60% for the NIRC.

The Government has rejected all these proposals and continues that adhere to its stance that the allocation of 50% of NIR as NRIC to the budget is fair for both the present and future generations. This brings us to the very pertinent question which is whether present-day Singaporeans are really enjoying the full benefit of the NRIC.

Upon deeper examination of our budgetary policies, we can see that not every dollar spent in the budget has been used on spending in the current year for the benefit of Singaporeans. Part of the budget goes towards the endowment and trust funds for future spending and another part goes towards making up the Housing and Development Board (HDB)'s deficit from land cost which goes to the reserves. This is equivalent to not enjoying the full benefits of the NIRC during the current year.

Let me first explain in more detail the contributions to the endowment and trust funds. The Government has said that the budget is in deficit and will continue to be so because of the increasing expenditure for the ageing population. However, is the budget really in structural deficit? Our budget has about $100 billion in operating revenues which does not include the NIRC. Total expenditures which include both operating and development expenditures slightly exceeds the operating revenues by about $3 billion to $5 billion. So, the budget should be in a big surplus after taking in the NIRC which is $23.5 billion in fiscal year 2023.

However, a deficit is normally reported in the overall budget because the Government transfers a large part of the surplus budget resources arising from the NRIC each year to many endowment and trust funds there are intended to fund long-term spending.

In 2019, MOF reported to the Estimates Committee that there will 23 such funds. There are probably more now. It is not easy to keep track of the balances and expenditures of these funds because only 11 funds set up by legislation are reported in the Government financial statements. The other funds are reported in the financial statements of Statutory Boards. Capital transfers to these funds are accounted for as current expenditures in the budget although most of these transfers are not spent in the current year.

Based on the budget figures from fiscal year 2012 to 2020, the total capital transfer to the endowment and trust funds is equivalent to 64% of the total NIRC allocated to the budget in that period.

In fiscal year 2023, the transfer equaled 72% of the NIRC. As a result, about $51 billion has been accumulated in the 11 funds listed in the Government financial statements by the end of fiscal year 2023. These funds are classified by MOF as: endowment funds; and, non-endowment or trust funds.

For endowment funds, it is stipulated by law, that the capital transferred is locked up and cannot be spent. Only the investment income can be disbursed. There are five such funds reported in the Government financial statements and the total capital locked up, is about $23 billion. For the non-endowment – or trust funds – the capital, together with the investment income, might be drawn down to meet expenditure needs over multiple years, long into the future. Even though, the capital has been expensed off the budget in the year of transfer.

Between 2018 and 2022, the actual net annual spending for the 11 funds, accounted for less than 10% of the total assets of the funds. The Government has argued, that the creation of endowment and trust funds is a more prudent measure to ensure that future expenditures are fully costed and paid for upfront. However, there is no need to do so in the case of the GST voucher fund, because, future GST voucher payments can be offset by GST revenues in the same year. As expenditures and costs are matched, what is the rationale to lock up $9 billion in the GST voucher fund now?

The regular top-ups of the funds, also show that not all the future expenditures can be accurately forecasted from the start. Hence, these endowment and trust funds – especially the five endowment funds – where the capital is locked up, can also be seen as a second set of reserves that are being set aside for specific purposes. When money is being transferred from the current year budget into these endowment and trust funds, we are essentially transferring money back into the reserves.

If we are too conservative and allocate too much money for future expenditures, in the current year budget, these could potentially mean a shortage of resources for other expenditures; and, lead to tax increases that are larger and earlier than required. PSP will suggest a more efficient way of deploying the surplus budget resources, arising from the NIRC later.

Next, we examine how the payment of land cost for public housing, has led to a heavier tax burden for Singaporeans. We have said that the financial reserves are valued at about $1.2 trillion, as of end-March 2023. The land reserve, on the other hand, are valued only when it is sold. No land cost is paid for, for land use by the State, for schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure. But when land is sold for public housing and commercial use, the user will pay a market cost of the land, which goes directly to the financial reserves.

Our main point of contention, relates to the Government charging land cost for public housing since 1985. Since 1985, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has been required to pay the land cost of the land into the financial reserves, when it gets land from the Government to build HDB flats. In fiscal year 2022, the HDB paid about $5.39 billion of land cost to the financial reserves. The total cost of HDB flats, comprise the land cost and construction cost. When the land cost is high and increasing all the time, HDB cannot charge the full cost to the buyer in order to maintain affordability.

As a result, HDB is saddled with large deficits – which amounted to $5.38 billion in fiscal year 2022. Incidentally, the HDB's deficit is almost equal to the land cost paid in fiscal year 2022.

The HDB deficit created, by paying land cost into the reserve, is not only paid by the HDB flat buyers, but also all of us taxpayers whenever we pay any tax. It is a heavy and unnecessary financial burden on Singaporeans, which can be avoided if the land cost is waived for public housing. Hence, while the reserves increase over time, this comes at the price of more taxes and smaller Build-To-Order (BTO) flats for Singaporeans.

We must ask ourselves, is this what we really want for ourselves; and, for our children and grandchildren?

Mr Speaker, the Government has tied up a lot of financial resources from the budget and in the reserves – to the detriment of the financial well-being of Singaporeans today. Through today's debate, PSP hopes to convince this House that our resources in the budget and reserves should be deployed more fairly for present day Singaporeans, while we continue saving for future generations.

In this regard, PSP proposes two changes: pertaining to the deployment of the NIRC and the charging of the land cost to public housing.

PSP's first proposal, is that no further endowment and trust funds should be created; and, no further top-ups should be made to existing endowment and trust funds. We propose to consolidate surplus budget or NIRC resources in an omnibus budget surplus fund, for future spending for Singaporeans, instead of breaking these resources into many endowment and trust funds. Long-term expenditure needs, should then be funded each year directly out of this budget surplus fund. The investment returns on the assets in the fund, should also be retained in the fund.

This approach has several advantages. First, it will ensure that surplus budget or NIRC resources will always be used promptly, for the immediate spending needs of Singaporeans. No capital will be left idle and the capital that is not used, remains in the budget surplus fund; and, not transferred back to the reserves.

Secondly, Parliament can have better oversight over one omnibus fund, as compared to more than 20 different funds managed by different Ministries, statutory boards and other agencies. The Parliament can be informed of the expenditures of the fund at the beginning of each fiscal year – just like any expenditures in the Budget. The Parliament can be given long-term spending projections of the fund, from the MOF; and, better ensure that future expenditure for all social causes, are fully costed and provided for upfront. When an integrated view of all the fiscal resources are available, Parliament will be in a better position to support tax increases of the Government, if required.

PSP's second proposal, is to waive the land cost for public housing owned by Singaporeans – for the purpose of occupancy under the affordable home scheme, proposed by PSP. Under the scheme, a Singaporean still pays land cost plus accrued interest, when he sells his HDB flat. Assuming the very unlikely scenario, that all Singaporeans do not sell their HDB flat, waiving land cost for public housing, may slow down the accumulation of financial reserves by up to $5 billion a year. Even so, this is a small price to pay to ensure, that every generation of Singaporeans can afford a HDB flat; and, also retire in the same flat with enough retirement income. In addition, the affordable home scheme will eliminate the HDB deficit, releasing substantial resources back into the budget and reducing the tax burden of all Singaporeans – especially the middle-class Singaporeans.

The two PSP proposals, do not reduce our past reserves. Although, it may marginally slow down the future rate of reserve accumulation. On the other hand, they are expected to produce very substantial benefits for Singaporeans. We urge the Government to study our proposals and report the results to this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, there is no need to keep the size of our past reserves, a secret, when the size of the financial reserves can be derived from publicly available information. The Government should accept this; and, release an official figure of the full size of the financial reserves, so that Singaporeans can properly discuss our budget, taxation and reserve accumulation policies.

PSP has estimated, that our financial reserves is about $1.2 trillion. I have also explained that there are five main sources of growth for our reserves, which will enable it to continue growing, by tens of or even, sometimes, hundreds of billions dollars a year. This provides us, with the fiscal space to relax the pace of our reserve accumulation marginally by, perhaps, a few billion dollars a year; to waive the land cost for BTO flat pricing; and, deploy the surplus budget and NIRC resources more proactively, to delay and reduce the necessity to raise taxes.

These are the kind of policies that will greatly reduce the financial burden and improve the quality of life, of present-day Singaporeans, while continuing to save for future generations of Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move. For country, for people.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, PSP has raised this Motion today, because we believe that it is important for Singaporeans to have a national conversation about our budget and reserve accumulation policies. While we agree that there are benefits in having reserves to cope with unforeseen circumstances, we are of the view that there comes a point, beyond which, continued accumulation of reserves hurts the welfare of and compromises the quality of life of present day Singaporeans.

First, let me explain how we arrived at the estimate of $1.2 trillion for our financial reserves. We used two different methods.

The first method is to add together the assets managed by GIC, Temasek and MAS. This method was used by CNA in the documentary, "Singapore Reserves: The Untold Story" in August 2023. Based on latest available figures, Temasek's net portfolio value is $382 billion. The Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) managed by MAS is $461 billion. However, this figure does not include the $247 billion of Reserves Management Government Securities (RMGS), issued when MAS transferred excess OFR to the Government. The value of the assets managed by GIC is secret. But even if we only add up, the assets under Temasek and the OFR and RMGS under MAS, we get a minimum estimate of the financial reserves of $1.09 trillion.

The second method is to use the latest Government Financial Statements (GFS). The total financial assets are $1.73 trillion as of end-March 2023. Government borrowings totalled $1.08 trillion. Subtracting Government borrowings from total assets, we arrive at the net financial assets of $0.65 trillion.

GFS does not include the assets of Statutory Boards like MAS. So, by adding up the net assets under GFS, and the OFR and RMGS under MAS, we arrive at a total of $1.36 trillion. Hence, we believe that the size of the financial reserves is somewhere between $1.09 trillion and $1.36 trillion. We, therefore, feel that $1.2 trillion is a reasonable estimate. We then looked at this $1.2 trillion estimate from a third angle using the NIRC, which is half the long-term expected real investment returns. Using net investment returns of $47 billion divided by $1.2 trillion, we get a real rate of return of 3.9% which appears to be reasonable.

We have given a detailed explanation of the basis of our reserves estimate of $1.2 trillion. If Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister disputes this figure, I hope that he can explain why.

Mr Speaker, my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, has spoken on how land costs contribute to the growth of our reserves. I will talk about how the higher rate of returns achieved on CPF savings and the lower interest rate paid to CPF members contribute further to the building of the reserves.

As at end 2022, Singaporeans have accumulated $545 billion in CPF savings. These savings are used to buy Government securities and are then passed on to be managed by GIC and MAS. GIC has disclosed that its nominal rate of return was 6.9%, on average, in the last 20 years in US dollar terms. If we take into account the depreciation of the US dollar relative to the Singapore dollar over the same period, we can estimate that the rate of return is about 5.4% in Singapore dollar terms.

The Minister for Manpower told us last year that CPF members earned, on average, an interest rate of close to 4%. This difference between the rate of return earned by GIC and that paid to CPF members of 1.4 percentage point goes directly into the reserves and could now be around $7 billion per year.

Will the Government disclose the average difference between the rate of return it has earned from investing CPF savings and the interest rate paid to CPF members over the last 20 years? How many billions of dollars have Singaporeans contributed into the reserves through our CPF savings? Could these returns not have been paid out to CPF members?

I shall now touch on the costs of excessive reserves accumulation. If we do not put the excess returns from CPF savings into the reserves, it can be paid to CPF members to improve their retirement adequacy. A 1.4% difference in return may not seem like much but it makes a big difference over a long time. For example, a savings of $50,000 earning an interest of 4% per year, would grow to $162,000 after 30 years. If the interest rate were 5.4%, it would grow to $242,000.

Reserve accumulation thus comes at the cost of lower retirement adequacy. Reserve accumulation also comes from charging land costs for public housing. As my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has explained, this is a major expense item for the Housing Development Board (HDB) which must be paid from Government revenue. If land cost was not an expenditure item, the need for the Government to raise revenue by raising taxes like GST would be reduced. The recent GST hike came at a very bad time and directly added to the cost of living pressures faced by many Singaporeans.

Moreover, the prices of HDB flats, even after subsidies and grants, are still considered high by many young couples as the land cost is high. This can have an adverse effect on their decision to have children.

PSP also believes that it is excessive to put all land sales proceeds into the reserves. Since land is no longer sold freehold, it is effectively a renewable source of income for Singapore, as pointed out by my colleague, Mr Leong, earlier. Land sales revenue should be recognised as revenue divided over the lease tenure. This will further reduce the need to raise taxes and impose further financial burden on taxpayers. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Progress Party (PSP) raised this Motion today to call on the Government to review our country's reserve accumulation policy to achieve a better balance between elevating the economic burden on present day Singaporeans and savings for future generations.

The benefits of having reserves are undeniable. In times of crisis, ample reserves allow us to respond calmly. However, the accumulation of reserves is not without cost. Every additional accumulation of reserves means an additional tax dollar or a dollar less for the people. With reserves gradually increasing, while the economic pressure on the people is growing, we feel it is necessary to review the existing policy.

According to our estimates, the Government accumulated reserves have reached $1.2 trillion.

This is 12 times the Government's annual expenditure. In other words, even if the Government were to stop collecting taxes, relying solely on reserves, it will be enough to sustain the Government's operations for 12 years.

On the other hand, OCBC's 2023 National Financial Health Survey shows that over half of Singaporean savings are not even equivalent to six months' salary. In light of this comparison, what is more important – accumulating reserves or helping Singaporeans strengthen their financial situation?

We often hear that reserves are for the benefit of our descendants, but our birth rate continues to decline and our descendants are becoming fewer and fewer. If not for the annual intake of about 20,000 new citizens, our population will begin to shrink. Whom are we ultimately leaving the ever-growing reserves to?

We hope to reconsider how to best utilise reserves in the current situation for the benefit of Singaporeans.

(In English): Sir, our reserves are built up through collecting more from taxpayers than the Government spends on Singaporeans. As our population ages and the generations that have built up the reserves enter age groups where higher healthcare expenditures are incurred, it is timely to review our reserve accumulation policies. For example, should we be funding the higher healthcare expenditures through raising additional taxes like GST, or should we choose to slow down the building up of reserves and use land sales proceeds instead?

To answer such questions, we need accurate information on the financial status of the Government. I agree it is difficult to specify an amount or level as being enough financial reserves. However, that does not mean that there is nothing to guide us on a suitable pace for reserve accumulation.

For example, we can look at the household savings in relation to the size of our reserves. According to the OCBC Financial Wellness survey 2023, more than half of Singaporeans have savings of less than six months' salary. When we compare this with the Government’s savings of 12 years of expenditure, does this not tell us where the need is more urgent? Does this tell us that it is appropriate to choose to raise GST now, rather than disrupt the flow of land sales proceeds into the reserves? PSP does not think so and we have said so before.

We keep hearing that the reserves are for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. But our total fertility rate has fallen to 1.05, which is half the replacement rate of 2.1. This means that the number of our children is halving with each generation. So, who exactly are we leaving our ever-growing reserves to? If not for over 20,000 new citizenships granted each year, our citizen population will start shrinking significantly in the coming years.

PSP calls on the Government to review our approach towards the reserves and seek a better balance between the needs of present and future generations.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

2.57 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I will make three points concerning Singapore's reserves and then I will set out the WP's five principles on the reserves.

My first point is that the Government should be more open about our reserves and reveal figures not for their own sake, but so as to facilitate mature conversations on the reserves to take place.

My second point is that the Government should not rule out using more than the current 50% of the net income returns contribution or what is known as the investment returns from the reserves to lessen the taxation burden on Singaporeans. I note that with regard to any prospective change in the 50/50 ratio, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is on record in this House as saying, and I quote, "Never say never", although these remarks have since been qualified to the extent that the Government does not intend to do so in the immediate term.

My third point is that there is significant public belief that the reserves are likely to be very healthy and will continue to grow through land sales, since land sales are not used to finance the Government's Budget, the proceeds of which go straight to the reserves.

Mr Speaker, my first point is that the Government should be more open about our reserves. In 2022, the WP proposed alternatives to raising the GST by considering the extent to which we can rely on the investment returns on the reserves to fund spending needs, such as healthcare.

Discussions on the reserves are also gaining traction outside this House. Shortly before the Presidential Elections last year, Channel NewsAsia broadcast a documentary which sought to shed more light on our reserves. There were interviews with Senior Management of the Ministry of Finance, the Prime Minister and former President Halimah Yacob.

The Prime Minister said in the documentary that people do not appreciate the importance of the NIRC, partly because, and I quote, "It is very hard for people to appreciate the degree to which we are benefiting from the reserves." Politically, however, the conversation on utilising more of the investment returns from the reserves as an alternative to taxation, as proposed by the WP – these have been cast by the PAP in extremely narrow terms. Almost any enquiry by the WP into the use of NIRC for social purposes, such as for intergenerational equity or as alternative levers of expenditure, is met with accusations of irresponsibility and snipes of the Opposition wanting to raid the reserves.

More recently, when the WP has made requests for details about the reserves, the PAP has characterised the reserves as a secret weapon; one so secret that even duly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot be expected to ask questions about it. In fact, MPs have to vote on drawdowns of Past Reserves even if they do not have any idea how much we will have left after a drawdown.

These realities close off mature and civil conversations on the reserves. But despite this, the public has not refrained from discussing or reimagining the use of our reserves. For example, in my 2019 Budget speech, I referred to a Business Times article which spoke of Singaporeans calling for a carving out of some part of our reserves to deal with the potential of speculative attacks and for another part to be made public. Singaporeans rightly wish to discuss the reserves and have information about them. In my 2020 Budget speech, I said that calls for greater transparency on the reserves were not out of place and they will continue in years to come. They run in parallel with Singaporeans taking ownership to explore fiscal solutions, with the view to co-create not just today's Singapore, but a sustainable and equitable tomorrow that future generations of Singaporeans will inherit.

My second point is that the Government should not close off the prospect of reviewing the NIRC formula to lessen the financial burden on Singaporeans and to explore policies that can improve social outcomes for Singaporeans. The 50% figure is not a sacrosanct number. In the 1990s, the Government was free to spend up to 100% of the interest and dividends it earned on past reserves within a current term of government. When our first elected president, Ong Teng Cheong, was moved to speak on this, the late president's concern was whether the interest and dividends generated by past reserves ought to be left fully in the hands of a current government. He called on the PAP to stop using 100% of the net investment income, and instead proposed a 50-50 formula, where 50% could be spent, and 50% of the investment returns would be added to the principal reserves.

At that time, in the 1990s, the PAP was not sold on the 50-50 ratio. Notwithstanding its psychological resonance today, then Finance Minister Richard Hu noted that while a 50-50 split of the Net Investment Income (NII) had merit, he added that: "a fixed proportion like 50-50 may not be appropriate for all circumstances". It would be useful to ask why the PAP was cautious about limiting itself to spending a portion of the dividends and incomes of past reserves.

When the Constitution was eventually amended to lock up and return 50% of the investment returns in 2001, Dr Hu pointed to two reasons. The first concerned the possibility of having to finance higher future expenditures, the second sought to reduce the prospect of repeatedly returning to the president for regular draws, should drawing on more than 50% of the investment returns become necessary.

But more than the PAP of the early 1990s, there are other Singaporeans today who can conceive of greater flexibility in increasing the spendable amount of the NIRC.

In August last year, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) released a working paper titled Public Deliberation on Singapore's Fiscal Policies and National Reserves. It aimed, amongst other things, to deepen the discussion on fiscal policy and intergenerational equity in Singapore. As part of the research for the paper, a survey was conducted with respondents being asked about the NIRC formula. There was also a table top budget exercise where participants could decide how they would fund government expenditures. They could tap on expenditure from five categories: (a) taxes and fees; (b) NIRC; (c) what it called NIRR, an unofficial term for the other 50% of the NIRC that is not used for the budget, or that cannot be used for the budget; (d) our principal reserves which cannot be drawn upon without the express approval of the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) and the President; and (e) debt.

The IPS working paper observed that while survey respondents chose to maintain the 50-50 NIR framework, the participants in the budget game were "more open to consider using more of the investment returns, that is, more than 50%, if these were spent in ways that would generate clear and measurable returns whether financial or social". More critically, participants understood that using more of the NIRC meant slowing the growth rate of the reserves. But they thought the NIRC should be a complementary tool which could alleviate the burden of taxation.

These are important observations. There are Singaporeans who can conceive of using, for example, 60% of the NIRC for social expenditure. In fact, in a hypothetical scenario involving the topping up of the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation package, the IPS participants even considered increasing spending even up to the point of tapping the principal reserves because of concerns for the current sandwich generation of Singaporeans, which refer to the taxpaying working generation that cares for both their elderly parents as well as their young children. A key concern of the IPS participants was wanting to avoid further burdening this group through taxes and charges.

Mr Speaker, if ordinary Singaporeans, and even those in our think tanks and participants in exercises in our think tanks, can move beyond PAP narratives on the reserves and find it to be a meaningful civic duty to deliberate the use of the investment returns from our reserves, it should be of no surprise to find politicians both inside and outside this House thinking along similar lines.

However, an important point to note is that while the IPS participants explored the drawing down of the principal sum in our reserves to pay for current expenditures, the WP has not called for the use of the principal reserves or our rainy day fund. What the WP has called for is an increase in the utilisation of the NIRC beyond 50% when needed. In our view, such a move would not jeopardise the growth of the reserves.

Mr Speaker, that brings me to my third point. Even if 100% of the NIRC could be spent – which the WP has not called for – the reserves would continue to grow steadily since proceeds from the sale of land which hit billions of dollars a year are added to the reserves. With the overwhelming majority of land in Singapore being leasehold, when the leasehold expires and the land is returned to the state, subject to prevailing land use parameters, another cycle of the sale of that same land will take place.

In the Housing and Development Board (HDB) context, Singaporean HDB households are required by law to return their flats to the state for free at the end of 99 years while the state will continue to recycle the land and collect money from future generations of Singaporeans, over and over again. The situation is the same for industrial properties where land is sold for 30 or 60 years. Perhaps the knowledge of this intuitive fact by the public explains why there is significant interest in conversations about a more equitable use of the NIRC for current and future generations of Singaporeans.

The depth of our reserves was effectively demonstrated in this house by Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) MP, Louis Chua, who remembered what Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat had said about the use of the reserves during COVID-19, that the equivalent of over 20 years of past budget surpluses had been used to fight COVID-19 and that a generation's worth of savings had been deployed to combat the crisis of a generation. The use of this language suggested that the reserves were significantly depleted and utilised to fight COVID-19.

In 2022, to critically examine these statements in the absence of specific information from the Government, WP MP Louis Chua asked Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong whether the principal reserves had become larger or smaller after the drawdown in 2020, in response to COVID-19. Deputy Prime Minister Wong did not answer the question directly but said that as of 2022, the reserves continue to grow. The reply confirms the depth of our reserves and the scale of the actual dent the $40 billion COVID-19 drawdown made.

If Mr Leong is right and the total value of our reserves stands at $1.2 trillion dollars, COVID-19, the crisis of a generation led to the consumption of about $40 billion, or 3.3% of our principal reserves. Extrapolating from Deputy Prime Minister's reply in this House, the $40 billion amount used for "the crisis of a generation" was recovered in two years or less through the sale of land and NIRC contributions.

Sir, I move on to my next section. The WP certainly does not see the depth of our reserves as a licence for the Government to spend beyond its means or to stop the growth of our principal reserves. But the same way the PAP of the 1990s did not see it fiscally imprudent or irresponsible to use up to 100% of the investment returns on the principal reserves if required, the WP does not see it as imprudent, for example, to use 60% of the NIRC if there are justifiable reasons to do so.

I will make five related points of principle. First, our principal reserves which continue to grow with the proceeds from land sales and NIRC should not be used to finance our budget expenditure except in emergencies such as COVID-19 or the global financial crisis.

Second, our economic growth is dependent on a Singapore that is open to the world and nimble enough to acquire first mover advantage in addition to being open to foreign talent. Ensuring we have a vibrant economy that generates wealth not just for the few at the top but across all levels of society should represent one of the first revenue bases from which we fund our expenditure. That said we should not close off conversations and encompass the use of investment returns and their impact as long-term social investments in our children could impact positively on outcomes for future generations of Singaporeans.

To that and thirdly, inter-generational changes and new realities, such as our transition to a hyper-aged society, should prompt us to consider whether more of our investment returns should be used to fund social needs, especially when we think of an older generation of Singaporeans who contributed relatively more in taxes and sacrificed for the greater good, for example, by seeing lower rates of employer CPF contributions so as to make Singapore more competitive.

The words of the late Richard Hu are not only true of the NII framework of the 1990s. They ring true today. That returning 50% of investment returns may not be appropriate in all circumstances going forward particularly, in view of our rapidly ageing population.

Fourth, differences in political points of view in this House, between the Government and the Opposition on the reserves, should not spill over into political meddling and interference in the investment decisions of GIC and Temasek. While questions will be asked in this House by the WP where necessary, directly questioning individual investment decisions for the sole purpose or a political purpose of pressuring the investment teams is not in the House's interest.

Fifth and finally, significant public interest on our expenditure needs requires our public institutions to play a greater role in advancing understanding of our fiscal policy. The IPS working paper I referred to earlier in my speech revealed relatively low levels of trust in journalists and the media in Singapore on the topics of reserves policy. For this House's information, Opposition politicians score higher in this regard.

To take advantage of Parliament's sovereign status and its privileged role as an institution of public record, this House should set up a Standing Select Committee that looks into the health of our reserves. The Committee should also consider specific funding needs and threat events that Singapore must prepare for, and to be briefed how these are to be funded. MPs should not be precluded from asking questions about the reserves in this Committee. The Select Committee's deliberations or reports have the potential of taking the political sting out of unjustifiable demands to use more investment returns for expenditure programmes. The role of a permanent Select Committee of Parliament is also a recommendation of the IPS working paper and one that the WP supports.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as long as the PAP takes the position that the reserves must be kept a secret, reasonable members of the public will query whether this is not simply a cover for an overly conservative treatment of reserves to fob off demands for social policies that can benefit Singaporeans. Such views would be completely understandable and expected of a discerning and mature population. The IPS working paper reported that one exercise was conducted among participants from higher socio-economic backgrounds, who in the IPS' view, are better informed citizens and "more sceptical of the Government's management of the reserves".

I would suggest that such views are not only held by those from the higher socio-economic groups. There are Singaporeans who wonder whether all our reserves, including the principal reserves, must be sequestered for speculative attacks against the Singapore dollar, the main reason the Government has offered for not revealing the size of our reserves.

In 2019, Singapore had the 11th highest stock of official foreign reserves in the world. As a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis, it was the third highest in the world.

In parallel, even in the context of inchoate or unknown threats, it makes sense to speak of realistic threat perceptions and limits that can be set on what it takes to deter adversaries who wish to attack the Singapore dollar. For example, the Air Force stops after procuring a finite number of the latest military assets. Why not acquire more since we have the capability and capacity to do so to make Singapore even safer? For military planners, these questions are answered by addressing the type of conflict one trains for, by weighing the likelihood of the threats becoming reality, the level of deterrence required and, ultimately, by using judgement.

There may well be considered and not overly conservative reasons for the current position on how much of our investment returns ought to be used for our expenditure needs. However, the current position of absolute secrecy about the total reserves when there are national institutions like Parliament in committee to discuss and deliberate these matters, leads me to think that there will be more differences of opinion from the current official orthodoxy on the transparency of the reserves in future. This will become even more acute as the social compact changes in the years and decades to come.

Issues of concern will not just come from a growing senior population or healthcare needs but possibly from a further slowing down of social mobility and a low total fertility rate that requires more immigrants to our population – inevitably leading to questions about a more equitable use of investment returns.

To this end, it would be important for the Government to leave itself the option of reviewing its position open, in particular, on the usage of the investment returns from our reserves. WP supports the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

3.16 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, the topic of reserves has been frequently debated in this House. We debated it in almost every Budget session or when we need to raise taxes, such during the GST Bill, or when we need to draw down on the reserves, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and during the Global Financial Crisis.

During my tenure as MP so far, we have had two amendments to the Constitution related to our reserves: first, in 2009, to institute the NIR framework; and, in 2015, when we included Temasek in the NIR framework.

Both amendments have the effect of refining our spending rules which, in essence, seek to achieve Budget funding stability while also seeking to achieve intergenerational equity. These changes to the reserve framework helped us to fulfil two purposes.

Firstly, ensure that we have sufficient reserves to deal with a major crisis or a catastrophic event, whether now or in the future.

Secondly, it provides a steady and sustainable stream of income that can last across generations.

Sir, in my years as a Member of this House, I have detected a significant shift in the tone of debate over the years. I remember in my first term in this House, the tone of the debate tends to be about how we can safeguard and how we can grow our reserves. In the last decade, what I observed is that it has since shifted more towards how we can use more of the investment returns for current spending.

Sir, I supported both the constitutional amendments in 2009 and 2015 and I agreed that the adjustment to the framework is necessary to achieve two purposes that I just mentioned. My position on the country’s public finance and its reserve accumulation policies have always been that we must stay fiscally responsible and sustainable while we tackle immediate and longer-term challenges faced by present-day Singaporeans and future generations of Singaporeans.

This has been always been my set of personal beliefs and values. I always believe that we must live within our means, work a little harder for a better tomorrow, save a little more than we can for better financial security not just for ourselves but for our families. I am sure many Singaporeans and Members of this House have similar values like me. They are not unique just to me. Of course, there are others who think otherwise.

Sir, we can still vividly remember the pandemic and the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and how they have impacted us. But, for me, the crisis that has the deepest bearing on me is the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997/1998. This was the crisis that had caused the meltdown in the financial markets and economies of North Asia and Southeast Asia. Many countries in the region experienced severe economic difficulties and massive unemployment. The currency values and stock markets of countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea went into a tailspin. Currencies and market speculators reaped massive profits putting gigantic short positions on these currencies and stock markets, squeezing up interest rates to as high as a few thousand percent overnight. Currencies like the Thai Baht, the Indonesia Rupiah, Malaysia Ringgit and Korean Won were decimated in the space of a few days.

I remember that the Hong Kong dollar peg was also under tremendous pressure as well. Speculators put on the famous no-brainer ATM trade, as it was called then, by shorting the Hang Seng Index, buying the US dollar against the Hong Kong dollar and forcing the HK Monetary Authority to the raise interest rate sharply to defend the peg which, in turn, caused even more sell-off in the stock market due to the high cost of money.

Singapore was not spared as well. I was a bank dealer working in the trading room at that time and I saw before my very eyes, within hours, how the Singapore dollar devalued from 1.73 to 1.82, all in that night. We called it the "20 big figure move". Fortunately, with our strong fundamentals and, I believe, the decisive intervention of MAS, the value of the Singapore dollar recovered the next morning and thereafter.

But it was not the case for the other regional currencies. Some currencies, like the Rupiah and Ringgit, never recovered to pre-1997/1998 levels till today.

The crisis triggered widespread rioting and political instability in our neighbouring countries. Though the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to provide stabilisation funding to countries like Indonesia, it had demanded the countries to impose tough austerity measures, causing more hardship to the people. At that time, I remember reading reports about politicians from neighbouring countries chiding Singapore for not offering more financial assistance to help the neighbours.

The lessons I took away from the Asian Financial Crisis is that we must always ensure that our economy is underpinned by sound fundamentals and, importantly, we must always be in a strong financial position, especially for a tiny island state like Singapore.

Today, the foreign exchange market has since ballooned more than five times since 1997, with an average trading volume of about S$7 trillion a day. We must never assume or take for granted that currency speculators will not target the Singapore dollar again. Hence, our reserves must always be the strongest first line of defence against intense speculations and be able to withstand the waves of massive capital flights should it happen.

Sir, the ability to fend off vicious market speculators is not the only benefit or value of having strong reserves. There are other critical advantages as well. Let me just name a few more.

Firstly, our strong reserves are clearly among the top considerations why international rating agencies rated Singapore the highest rating of AAA. It enables the Singapore Government and its agencies to borrow at the lowest risk-free rate. During the Global Financial Crisis, the Government provided a $150 billion guarantee on all bank deposits in Singapore. This guarantee and other financial commitments that the Government made are credible because it is backed by the reserves and, hence, it is highly creditworthy. The benefits of strong reserves also help us keep our Singapore dollar strong and it is also a strong anchor factor that reinforces investors’ confidence.

The second critical advantage of strong reserves is our ability to mount a strong response during a crisis. We have seen that playing a crucial role during the COVID-19 pandemic, giving the Government the fiscal ability to significantly boost healthcare measures, procure and obtain the best vaccines amongst the earliest in the world and introduce huge support packages, such as the Job Support Scheme (JSS).

Thirdly, in the event of disasters and natural calamities or a catastrophic event, our strong reserves give us hope and the means to recover and to rebuild. The tragic situation in Ukraine is a sombre reminder of how a war can have such massive destruction to lives and to the country. As the war continues, the President of Ukraine has no choice but to keep appealing and pleading to the United States and the European Union (EU) to keep funding their war efforts against Russia. We know that there is always a limit as to how much we can count on others to help us. We hope there will never be a war on our land and that is why we take our defence very seriously. And this is why we need to build strong reserves for any contingencies and also because of our inherent vulnerability.

Sir, it is not possible to predict or anticipate when and what the next major crisis would be and how devastating it can be. But what we can do is to always ensure that we are in a position of strength to deal with it, should there any crisis or disaster. And, here, having solid financial means to respond decisively is the necessary readiness that can make a crucial difference.

Fourthly, the stable and growing NIRC, which is another critical advantage that we have. Perhaps, this is the most tangible present-day benefit of having a sizeable reserve, that is, the NIRC, which is a topic of frequent debate in recent years as well. Thanks to decades of prudence and accumulation by those before us, our reserves now generate a significant stable and sustainable income stream to fund annual Budgets. Based on financial year (FY) 2023 estimates, the NIRC is expected to contribute $23.48 billion, or about one-fifth of our annual revenue and second to corporate tax. Ten years ago, in 2012, the NIRC was $7.6 billion, about one-third of what it is today. And five years ago, in 2018, it was $16.41 billion.

Sir, these investment returns help a great deal to reduce our tax burden. We would otherwise run deficits or would have to raise more taxes and/or cut spending to balance the Budget. As our expenditures are certainly going to keep rising in the years ahead, it makes good sense to keep growing the NIRC so as to reduce our future tax burden. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, the NIRC can continue to grow and contribute, perhaps even one-third or 50% of our total revenue. Saving 50% of our investment returns helps us achieve that and yet it is still able to provide a significant contribution for current spending.

It is not even an issue about whether are we too conservative or are we being too cautious in our finances. It is just about being judicious with our money and let the compounding effect of the money do the work for us to expand our future spending power.

In the context of the NIRC framework, what is not spent and saved does not get wasted. It gets compounded. It grows the base principal amount of our reserves which helps to add to the NIRC of the next financial year which, in turn, will benefit present-day Singaporeans.

Growing the NIRC gives us more fiscal space to provide more help and support to Singaporeans on an ongoing basis, including helping Singaporeans cope with present-day and future-day cost of living situations. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, adequate reserves are important for every country. But for a small and vulnerable nation like Singapore, they are especially crucial.

I would like to use a few key words to describe its importance.

The first key word is that ample reserves are our peace of mind. Our country often experiences serious crises, such as the pandemic two to three years ago and the Global Financial Crisis in 2009. These crises directly impact our economy causing job instability and concerns about our health and life. These situations bring about a sense of unease among our people.

Fortunately, we have a secret weapon that can greatly help us to deal with crisis, and that is our reserves, the key financial resource. With ample financial resources, we have the ability to implement more decisive assistance measures and reassure our people. It is also because of our ample reserves that Singapore can maintain its best credit rating and investors' confidence and thus keep the Singapore dollar strong. A strong reserve also enhances our ability to deal with the market speculators who seek to attack our Singapore dollar.

The second key word is the guardian of the nation. We can easily imagine that for Singapore, being a small red dot, if any catastrophic event happens, such as natural disasters, serious accidents, conflicts or even wars, it will have a very tremendous impact on our country. With our small land area, there is simply no room to escape. In the event of a catastrophic event, our only way forward is to rally our people and to rebuild our homeland.

We also lack the natural resources and land for agricultural. These reserves will provide us with the capital to rebuild and recover. They are, indeed, our guardian of the nation.

The third key word is that the investment income from our reserves also helps us to manage our Government expenditure and provide for future generations.

The Government is able to use half of the investment return from the reserves each year to fund its budgetary expenditure, benefitting the current generation. And this fiscal income has been increasing over the years. We certainly hope that it will continue to increase in the future. This will allow the Government to have a greater leeway to increase expenditure to help the people, improve their quality of life and help alleviate the current and future tax burdens. It can be said to be a win-win situation.

(In English): Sir, while the Budget Statements are made once a year at the start of the year, the Government do introduce off-budget packages to help Singaporeans reduce their financial burden. For example, in September 2023, the Government announced the $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living support package to provide relief to households. I also remember during the pandemic, we had additional budgets, a total five budgets in one over year to help Singaporeans.

Here, I call on the Government to do that to help present-day Singaporeans cope with the cost of living, including in the coming Budget and doing it in a fiscally responsible and sustainable way. Sir, in this context and with your consent, I would like to propose amendments to the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of your amendments?

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Yes. [A copy of amendments was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. Do you have copies available to distribute to Members?

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Yes, Sir. May I request the Clerk to distribute the proposed amendments to the Members? [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Speaker: I think everyone has a copy. Mr Liang, you can please move your amendments.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments.

First, in line 1, to delete "review" and insert "ensure".

Second, in line 1, to delete "current".

Third, in line 2, after the words "reserve accumulation policies", to insert "always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable,".

And fourth, in line 3, to delete "continuing to save" and insert "planning and providing".

Sir, with that, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: There are four amendments proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa to the Motion.

The first amendment is that in line 1, to delete "review" and insert "ensure".

The second amendment is in line 1, to delete "current".

The third amendment is in line 2, after the words "reserve accumulation policies", to insert "always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable,"

And the fourth amendment is in line 3, to delete "continuing to save" and insert "planning and providing".

It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?

Hon Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The Question is the amendments as moved by Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Oh, Mr Leong, do you have a question?

3.36 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Can I ask Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa whether during the Asian financial crisis or Asian currency crisis which I was also deeply involved in at that time, whether the speculative attack, actually it is not just on the Singapore dollar; it was a widespread attack on all the currencies. So, there was also a sell-off on Singapore dollar, but the Singapore dollar as Mr Liang has shared, recovered very fast.

So, can I ask him whether he thinks that the recovery of the Singapore dollar at that time was due to the fact that we have kept our financial reserves a secret?

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, I think it is a combination of factors. Of course, the financial reserves form an important consideration for the speculators not to challenge the central bank on this. Of course, like I said in my speech, the economic fundamentals of our country, how we manage the political stability and others, I think all contributed to that. But you still need to be seen to have that adequate reserve, to be able to at least set a strong first line of defence to deter any would-be speculators from coming in.

So, I believe, if you do a contrast between the countries and Singapore in the region, it would quite obviously show that the speculators know they cannot challenge the Singapore central bank, because they know the Singapore central bank has the means to intervene and to take the decisive actions.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I have another question for Mr Liang. Does he agree that the defence of the Singapore dollar and keeping the reserves secret are two separate matters. Because the MAS is already tasked with a lot of resources to defend the Singapore dollar. And I think Mr Liang has quoted that during the Asian Financial Crisis, the Singapore dollar recovered very fast.

I do not know, but since he was in the forex market, he may know more. How much has the Singapore MAS spent in defending Singapore at that time? Probably, $10 billion? It is not a very big sum of money, in contrast to what MAS has its arsenal to fight the speculators. So, does he agree that actually, we do not need to keep the reserves secret; and yet, we still can defend the Singapore dollar?

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, the first point is that our central bank has that credibility. Because they know it is MAS. They know they can only challenge up to a point, and they would have to pull back.

I would not know how much MAS has spent. It is not privy to me. But I know the speculators do know that it will come to a point when they will be overwhelmed by what MAS can do, given that the financial strength of Singapore is known.

The point that Mr Leong Mun Wai is trying to say is, can you still let everyone know the size of your reserves. I do not think it is a wise thing because once people know where is your limit, then, next time around, when they know where they can push, maybe more speculators, they will be going for that limit. So, I agree with the Government and I think it makes sense for us to keep our reserves to ourselves and not to be revealed, so that we can keep the speculators guessing. And when we intervene, we will intervene in a decisive way.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, can I ask, through you, another question for Mr Liang. The current amount of official foreign reserves that MAS has is already 100% of our GDP. Does he know how many countries in the world have official foreign reserves equivalent to 100% of their GDP to fight the speculators?

But anyway, the Asian currency crisis, I had already proven that actually, we have enough credibility because MAS has managed the Singapore dollar very well in line with our economic fundamentals. So, even if the speculators, as part of attacking the other Asian currencies and come and attack us, we are fully prepared because our currency is in line with our economic fundamentals.

Next, we have enough official foreign reserves to defend our currencies. So, as a result, as I said just now, is there still a need to keep the secret of our total reserves? Because actually, there is also a kind of contradictory argument here on the part of Mr Liang. For the speculators, the more they see what your reserves are, the more they are unlikely to attack you.

Does Mr Liang agree that keeping the total reserves secret and defending the Singapore dollar, actually, they can be two different issues?

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: I am trying to figure out whether is that a comment or a question. I will just see how I can pick up from what the Member has just said.

Firstly, I just said in my speech that the foreign exchange market is a $7-trillion market. It is massive. If there is a speculative attack, you never know what is the reason. It could be some events that happened that caused the speculative attack. Therefore, you always want to keep that last trump card to yourself. And I believe that usually works because if you reveal too much, that is when you show your hand, where are the limits you can go.

But more importantly, the point about Singapore is that we have our inherent vulnerabilities, unlike other countries where they have a big domestic economy, they have natural resources and so on. For Singapore, we are just a tiny island-state and the financial reserves is just the only back-stop that we have. Therefore, we need to really be mindful that someone may see us as a tiny state and may one day find a reason to attack us. And that is why keeping it not known will serve us better than to let it be known.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

3.43 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): What are reserves? In its broadest form, reserves are the difference between the assets and liabilities of a sovereign people. In principle, this would include not just our financial reserves, which is captured in cash and other financial assets, but all the nation's endowments: her stock of built capital – the buildings, machinery, equipment and other infrastructure – as well as our natural capital – our natural forests, reservoirs and rivers, lands and biodiversity.

But for our purpose here, we are focusing on financial reserves. In Singapore, reserves are officially defined as the net assets of the Fifth Schedule entities in the Constitution. This includes holdings by not just our sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) – GIC and Temasek – but also CPF, HDB, Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) and MAS. The bulk of these likely reside in the SWFs, with the MAS also carrying a non-trivial share. Hence, for practical purposes, it makes sense for us in this debate today to focus on the reserves managed by these entities.

It is useful, however, to begin by asking how we even got these reserves in the first place? We do not have many natural endowments, so, at the risk of over-simplification, it is useful to think in terms of national income accounting, which requires that any reserves we hold, or for any other country for that matter, derive from only two sources.

First, from fiscal surpluses, which is, when the government collects more revenue than it spends, and it saves the remainder.

The second is from current account surpluses, which result when the private sector saves more than it invests. And part of this excess saving is retained in the form of foreign currency. Money that is obtained from the sale of land or the issuance of Government securities or SGSs, for the purposes of financial development are therefore, forms of reserve accumulation that derive from fiscal surpluses.

The Government would like to say that such excess revenue from land is not just ours to take. Land is limited and our land endowment belongs to everybody, including future generations. Similarly, legal stipulations mean that any revenue raised from certain classes of SGSs cannot be spent on recurring expenses.

But the fact remains that reserves from this source result when there is excess saving by the Government, which means taking more income from the people than they would otherwise have been able to enjoy.

In contrast, reserves accumulated due to current account surpluses occur when the exchange rate is kept artificially low or when there is foresaving in the form, perhaps of CPF, over and above what households may themselves wish to set aside.

A weak exchange rate makes our nation's exports more attractive, no doubt. But let us be clear. It comes on the backs of what we could otherwise import. A weak exchange rate also means that our people have less purchasing power to buy things from the rest of the world. And foresaving likewise, tightens the budgets of households today.

Put another way: reserves from this source are the consequence of suppressing private consumption in favour of business competitiveness. One may also point to a final source, as others in this House have, interests on reserves which go back into reserves. This is making money from money and while it owes its provenance to careful reserve management by our SWFs and central bank, they are derivatives of the fact that we had, at some point in the past, either excess government or private savings to begin with.

Keeping in mind what I have shared, it should be clear that given where our reserves come from, who they ultimately belong to. While prudent fiscal management undeniably contributes to ensuring that these are not squandered, the ultimate source of all our reserves is when we ask our people to consume less today.

Our nation's eye-watering reserves stock was built on the back of sacrifices made by our past and present generations for the sake of future needs. Our nation's reserves belong therefore to the people, not to the government. What does this mean? It means that our Government is a steward for our reserves. That means that they have been entrusted with managing it, growing it and dispersing it. And like any good steward, government may suggest how much we should be setting aside and when we should be drawing it down. But when the government exercises high-handedness in its management of the reserves, it will naturally strike us as over-wrought exercises of its authority.

If the reserves belong to the people, then it should follow that certain principles apply.

One is transparency. That is why across the world, SWFs and public pension funds in democratic societies routinely publish their reserve holdings. This goes beyond sound principles and best practices. Adherence to transparency simply means that you are respecting the rights of the owner to know what they own.

Few people I know would be happy if the banks did not permit them to know or check the value of their current balances, or to know the contents of their wallet. I mean, the SimplyGo debacle demonstrated amply that people were even unhappy when they could not instantaneously know how much they had left in their transport accounts.

More generally, such transparency also ensures that reserves are held accountable in real time to their owners. This is why the current practice where the portfolio assets of Temasek and the foreign exchange holdings of MAS are known, but the assets of GIC remain concealed, runs a foul of this principle.

The usual justification trotted out for keeping part of our reserves unreported is inspired by the intuition underlying military conflict. The Government has appealed to how the absence of the secrecy could make us more vulnerable to speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar, since presumably, markets might hold back when betting against an opponent when it is uncertain about the size of his arsenal.

Yet, even here, the analogy is tenuous. The Ministry of Defence routinely trots out information about the latest and greatest hardware secured by our army, navy and air force. Our National Day Parade includes a military component, no doubt to further signal our impressive defense capabilities. Of course, some of these is kept unknown, and for that reason, for strategic ambiguity, yes. But, we certainty do not wish to undersell how much we have, in case, we diminish the deterrent effect. It is like keeping your largest weapon in the arsenal secret and that, would, I contend, do exactly that. But there is even a sound economic case for revealing this information.

Forex traders need no, and often do not, agree. This is why publishing our full reserves may avail an additional benefit: if we face speculators who are selling the Singapore dollar, say, the information could goad into action market participants who may instead buy our currency, if they believe that our fundamentals are strong. Such stabilising speculation lends stability, not instability.

To follow with the military analogy, this revelation allows our allies to better provide support to our military effort. In any case, the MAS has itself, adjudged that the amount required for business-as-usual management of our exchange rate regime amounts to between 65% and 75% of GDP. Official data reveals that reserves from MAS and Temasek, together with the publicly-acknowledged amount of at least $100 billion from GIC, means that it is in excess of $1.2 trillion, as PSP has suggested.

Even with this lower bound, which is likely to understate the size of our reserves, is already close to twice our GDP, multiples more that of what the Government has itself stated is reasonable for defending our currency. Surely, we would not be willing to sacrifice anything akin to twice our national income, just to defend our currency. Given this vast disconnect, it is befuddling why the notion of secrecy is even necessary to defend the exchange rate. And yet, it is still trotted out by this Government.

Furthermore, other jurisdictions have shown that such transparency – far from being detrimental to operational effectiveness – are consistent with either size or performance. The world's largest single SWF, the Government Pension Fund of Japan, is open about its assets and performance. The world's second-largest fund, Norway's GPF-Global, routinely tops measures of global transparency. These funds have not compromised transparency even as they have produced credible returns.

In contrast, the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia was allowed to go on in part for as long as it did, because of the opaque environment in which it operated. While I am not suggesting that our SWFs fall in this category, there is evidence that points to a positive relationship between high governance standards and superior returns.

What transparency ultimately buys, therefore, is accountability. It is only through routine disclosure of reserve holdings and their returns that the stewards of our money may be held to account. This includes frequent updates on asset exposure and fund performance, which most obviously include annual returns, not just those for medium-term windows.

Setting aside how this is standard practice for all credible funds, it also means that managers can be held to account before things go awry. Some may argue that this could place undue pressure on our SWFs to be beholden to political pressures.

To this, I would say three things. First, we do want some degree of pressure, albeit on the political office holders overseeing our SWFs investment mandate. This is a healthy state of affairs. This sort of scrutiny is precisely what accountability is about; funds around the world, whether public or private, face such pressures from their shareholders.

Second, if we think that annual returns might induce an excessive focus on the short run; which is the case for GIC; then, the fact that multiple longer-run windows precisely allows the public to credibly evaluate whether poor returns in any given year are a one-off blip, or indicative or something more systematic.

And finally, the Government frequently states that it does not intervene in SWF investment decisions anyhow. If they are already thus insulated, why not the added accountability?

Knowledge about asset exposures go beyond investment considerations. It can reveal, for instance, if our SWFs hold assets in industries that could either potentially run afoul of the national interest, or be inconsistent with stated resolutions of Parliament. For example, while some information is presumably reported to the MAS as the regulator, the public does not know and is unable to scrutinise if the SWFs may inadvertently hold Russian assets tied to sanctioned individual or entities. Similarly, we do not know what share of our SWFs' portfolios comprise industries that contribute actively to climate change, an issue that this House itself has deemed a global emergency.

The third and final principle is consultation. Given that we are a democracy, the decision on whether we should be using more or less of our reserves should be a common, collective decision, one that is arrived at after a process of proper deliberation over their best use with full information available. We could decide of course, as a nation, to be conservative and only draw on reserves in emergencies, as the Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa, has suggested. But we could just as well decide that we would rather partially relieve the wrenching cost-of-living pressures our people face residing in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

In a similar vein, we could be kiasu, investing conservatively, so as to hoard as much as possible for a rainy day. But, by the same token, we could say that this kiasuism is inefficient and harmful. With such a long horizon, it would be better to be more aggressive in investing, in putting our money to work, by perhaps investing more domestically today than we do. That is why I believe that it makes sense for GIC to train its eyes toward global investments for international diversification benefits, while Temasek focus much more on local opportunities, supporting the efforts of Singaporeans, to re-invest in their home country.

But the bottom line is that unless we have a serious conversation, as a nation and people, over the proper use of our reserves, one with full information of what we have and what we should set aside, we will never arrive at a position where we are comfortable with what is being spent, whether in terms of our NIRC or even the amount we hold as principle. It is unconscionable that the people's savings do not get a fair airing in a democratic society, with the vague reassurance that we only need to trust that the Government is being prudent, and any efforts to alter the usage of reserves amounts to some charge of fiscal irresponsibility.

And that is why for me, the use of emotive terms like "raiding the reserves" makes little sense. This distinction is unnecessary; after all, any amount of income that we choose not to set aside as saving, even one cent, would logically amount to taking away from the reserves. So, if it is applied to the WP's suggestion, that we could avoid a hike in the GST by reducing the share of reserve interest, not the principal, but interest, that is being returned to reserves, it should apply with equal force when the PAP chose to alter the formula for net investment income to introduce the NIRC in 2008, or to add Temasek to the framework in 2015.

More importantly, the charge is also not useful, since it distracts us from the choices that really matter. And these choices surround how much we wish to burden the people of today in exchange for promises of the future.

When claims are made that there is no such thing as over-saving, it smacks of rigid ideology, not reasoned debate. More saving is better, but only if we are not making undue sacrifices today. Economics is sometimes defined as the science of allocating scarce resources to unlimited wants. I would argue this applies not only between our needs in any given period, but across time as well, between yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Our reserves, after all, are not exempt from the laws of economics. When we are told in a high-handed way that we cannot spend down our inheritance "for our own good," even when our people are struggling with record high costs of living, it smacks of paternalism.

It amounts to saying that when we decide that spending more to take care of the elderly who made the sacrifices necessary to make up the reserves in the first place, it is unfair to the future and we diminish the contributions of the past.

It amounts to suggesting to parents, who want to create a better environment for their kids by having to spend more of their tuition fees or creating a better home environment that they do not really know any better.

It would not surprise Members of this House that the three principles I outlined of transparency, accountability and consultation are foundational ones, embedded in the Santiago principles – a set of best practices for sovereign investments agreed to by the national working group of SWFs, for which, GIC and Temasek, are signatories.

GIC, however, fares poorly on a range of transparency indicators and Temasek is particularly opaque on its accountability surrounding governance structures. We should be striving for our SWFs to be topping this global benchmark, much like how we do for other global comparison exercises.

Perhaps more fundamentally, subscribing to transparency, accountability and consultation ensures that the amounts we hold in our reserves have legitimacy in the eyes of the people who actually own them. That is ultimately what a reasonable debate about our reserves should be about.

Mr Speaker, I cannot support the amended version of the Motion, in part because it suggests that we strike off the importance of review. Given all that I have shared, this review is critical for us to understand the importance of what we can do or cannot do with the people's money. And for that reason, I support the original Motion as proposed by the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.

4.02 pm

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Motion. Public finance and budgets are crucial for the government to raise funds and simultaneously allocate those funds for national spending and fostering the development of our economy.

Management of our reserves is of great importance for Singapore as we are a relatively small and very open economy. Many of our trading partners envy the discipline we have shown in managing and growing our reserves over the last many years. While these countries recognise the fact that as a small and open economy, Singapore will face more volatility than larger economies with greater natural resources, they take comfort from both the professional management as well as the size of the reserves.

Additionally, the management of resources is of great importance for the entire business community in Singapore. As many of us in business know only too well, new business investment is driven by the level of confidence experienced by key decision-makers and investors at any given point of time.

The way the Government responds to each crisis and the step-by-step established process taken by the executive, legislature and finally the President of the Republic of Singapore, has instilled great confidence in multinational corporations (MNCs), international investors and domestic companies to continue to invest in Singapore in times of trouble. As an independent Nominated Member of Parliament representing the business community, I would like to share with Members some thoughts with that lens in mind.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government drew down reserves for public health expenditure including securing of vaccines and the roll-out of stabilisation and support packages to help workers stay employed and provide support for businesses. Such policies helped us emerge stronger when the economy recovered. Also, setting aside $150 million of reserves to guarantee deposits was one of the measures that were instrumental in safeguarding the continuity of business operations.

Without these packages, the recovery process would have been significantly impeded, adversely impacting both our entrepreneurs and Singapore’s broader economic landscape. It is important to note here that while other countries had to borrow to initiate similar packages in their respective countries, we were able to use our reserves to manage the crisis.

In the recent past, with the high inflation hitting us, the Government has rolled out additional assurance packages, such as the Cost-of-living Support, to ensure that Singaporeans are better able to cope.

Besides serving as a very important source of funds during times of emergency, our reserves also maintain stability within our economy. Having such stability and consistency is very important and acts like a shock absorber when the economy goes through a rough patch and unemployment needs to be minimised.

Let us also not forget how the draw down on the reserves helped maintain jobs in Singapore during the Global Financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. One very successful scheme was the Jobs Credit scheme which helped business leaders maintain a higher employment level than what would have been possible otherwise.

In my view, our reserves besides playing the role of a “rainy day fund”, also play the role of a "balancing fund” that allows the use of the NIRC to meet the critical funding needs in the budget each year. The presence of substantial reserves and our ability to draw on the NIRC also allows us to maintain lower taxes within a very stable overall tax regime. For many nations, their annual budgets are funded by additional borrowing or by raising taxes frequently.

Let me emphasise that while I welcome and respect the intentions of my friends who have filed the original Motion to help Singaporeans reduce their financial burden, their call in my view, for the Motion for the Government to review and change its current budget and reserve accumulation policies is perhaps risking the long-term economic stability for our children and grandchildren.

We should realise that increasing the percentage of NIR to fund the NIRC would mean a greater risk that the “rainy day" part of the fund would be compromised. There are no free lunches in life and we should be very, very clear of what the trade-offs that are involved here.

Also, in my view, the exact size and details of Singapore’s reserves should be confidential to reduce the chance of speculative attacks by any foreign institution. During the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, several Asian countries experienced massive currency sell-offs partly due to the speculative attacks that exploited weaknesses in their respective financial systems. Given Singapore’s use of a managed float system, the revelation of reserves will increase the likelihood of a speculative attack in times of economic downturn.

Further, such speculative attacks on any currency are not easy to counter. While Singapore did well in the financial crisis, Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea took many years to recover from the attacks on their currency.

During challenging times, the Government’s actions reaffirm the dedication to maintaining economic stability and ensuring the well-being of Singaporeans, thereby showcasing the strategic and compassionate use of the reserves. This clearly illustrates that the discretion shown in not revealing the specifics of our reserves has not impacted the Government’s ability to respond effectively and quickly to the needs of our population.

Additionally, keeping our reserves confidential prevents the likelihood of unnecessary public pressure and in extension, misallocation of the reserves. In my view, public pressure on the Government to roll out very populist schemes and initiatives might not be in Singapore’s best interest in the medium and long term.

For example, if Singapore’s reserves were larger than what the public anticipated, pressure to increase Government spending, if not managed carefully, could lead to greater inflationary pressures. In the current economic environment where inflation levels are high, this would erode purchasing power and affect the savings of Singaporeans. As has been seen in many, more advanced countries, opening the Pandora's Box of populist policies has led to a quick erosion of large reserves replaced now by massive, expensive debt loads that will take many generations of citizens of those countries to repay.

In my view, a balanced, stable economic policy that supersedes any need for ultra populist initiatives ensures that spending decisions are made judiciously and in line with long-term goals.

Responding to the suggestion that the Singapore Government should not limit the use of up to 50% of the NIRC, I respectfully disagree. There are several reasons why I think it would be not advisable to increase the percentage above 50%.

Firstly, I believe placing the limit of the NIRC to 50% ensures the long-term sustainability of Singapore’s reserves. By spending only a portion of the investment returns, the Government aims to and will be able to preserve the principal value of the reserves.

Additionally, limiting the use of the NIRC to only 50% ensures prudent fiscal management both in terms of taxation as well as government expenditure.

Finally, the 50% rule is based on expected future returns, which can vary. Realised returns can be lower or higher, so the 50% rule also protects the principle in those scenarios.

This effectively allows us to save for the future, whether during times of economic crises or for the future generations. Given that Singapore is a small city-state with limited natural resources, a comparison to larger countries with greater natural resources is in my view, impractical. Our reserves act as a critical buffer against economic volatility and provide financial security, as seen recently during the pandemic.

Further, saving for the future ensures that subsequent generations have access to similar, if not better resources and opportunities, through the Government’s investment in better education and better healthcare. If we were to remove this policy, this could cause undue financial burden on our children and grandchildren, potentially limiting their ability to respond to the economic challenges and emergencies at that time.

Our reserves are strategic assets that carry the commitment of past generations to the next to make sure that Singapore is ever ready to address any crisis when faced with it. In my view, too much time is spent on discussing our reserves. Instead, we should be focusing on how we can grow our economy in the future and create well-paying jobs for our citizens on what we are likely to see as a very volatile, risky, global economy in the next two decades.

In addition to that, what we need are prudent fiscal and monetary policies that allow the Government to effectively function, enable funding of all important development programmes, that ensure that no one falls through the cracks.

Mr Speaker, sir, based on the views that I have expressed, I am not in support of the original Motion, but I am in support of the amendment proposed by Mr Liang.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

4.13 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one question for the hon Member. I respect his views on the treatment of the NIRC and I think he gave three reasons why 50% was a figure he was comfortable with, and I understand they were long-term sustainability and prudent fiscal management. He had a final point which was the concern about expected future returns.

I refer to then Finance Minister Tharman Shanmuguratnam's round-up speech when the Constitution was amended in 2015. He talked about safeguards. And the fifth safeguard and I will read what the then Finance Minister said, and I quote, "but there is an important fifth safeguard, which is in the governance processes in the NIR framework that also ensures that we do not spend on the basis of over optimistic assumptions about expected returns. The process by which expected long-term real rate of returns are decided has checks and balances and is shaped by a sense of realism about the risks in the investment world."

In response to that, I would be grateful if the hon Member could agree with me that the way the NIRC system is designed actually ameliorates the concern that the Member has about expected future rates of return.

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. From what I understand of how the returns are calculated and projected, and being in the financial markets for the last 30 years, there is not stability of financial returns, under any circumstances.

So, they will always be volatility in the returns on any asset class at any given point in time. One can try and smoothen out the volatility as much as one can, but that means investing everything in cash, which is obviously not a prudent thing to do, given today.

In my view, the volatility in returns will remain and the expected returns will always be in a certain range, depending on the risk taken for that respective asset class.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank hon Member for his reply. My point really was that the NIR formula itself has been designed to be conservative. And that is the point I sought to make.

Mr Speaker: Mr Parekh, do you want to respond? It is just a comment. Please go ahead.

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant: Sir, I thank him for the comment. So, I will let that be.

Mr Speaker: Sure. Mr Leong.

4.16 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I just want to make one clarification with hon Member Mr Neil Parekh. In his speech, he seems to have introduced a new reason for not disclosing the reserves. I just want to confirm with him. He said that, if reserves are revealed and they are larger than what is expected and the Government spends more, it will lead to inflation. Is he putting this up as an additional reason for not disclosing the reserves?

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant: Thank you, Mr Leong. I did, because the more money you put into the overall money supply, whether the Government spends it or any private entity spends it, it will lead to inflation, if the overall pool of assets does not change. We saw that in our real estate market in the recent past, where there was a significant inflow of perhaps international money. So, absolutely. Any new money that comes in that was not there, leads to inflation – which is perhaps the reason that any economic policy put forward by the Government needs to be watched very carefully.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not deny the effect of more spending; that it may have some effect on inflation. But my question is, if that is the reason the hon Member has put up for not revealing the reserves, I would like to ask our office holders from the Government whether that is the Government's position or not. That is, I do not want to reveal the reserves because I do not want to spend more.

Mr Speaker: Actually, I think Mr Parekh mentioned that as one of a few.

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant: Yes. May I clarify, Speaker, what I had said, just to be very clear, is if there is a discovery of the size of the overall reserves which pushes the Government into extra populist policies, that will cause inflation. Meaning, the populist policies that are mandated will lead to inflation. So, I think that is my view. I do not think that is something that the Government can answer. They may totally disagree with my view.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

4.19 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. There are two main points the original Motion made that are preserved in the amended Motion. These are: the Budget should help reduce the financial burdens of Singaporeans and improve their quality of life; the second is the reserve accumulation policy should be adequate for future generations of Singaporeans.

Both of these are good objectives. However, there is a tension between these objectives. The more we spend today, the less we will save for future generations.

How do we meet both of these objectives? I believe the amendments proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa help to set out a principled way to strike this balance, which is to ensure that we always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable. In addition, the amendment of "continuing to save" is sensibly changed to "planning and providing for" because the stewardship of our reserves is not passive saving but planned management to provide for the future.

Let me start with the importance of building reserves. The easiest thing to do is to spend today and forget about tomorrow. There is a famous Frank Sinatra song, "Forget Domani". It sounds like "Forget the money", but actually "domani" is Italian for "tomorrow". The chorus of the song is "Let's forget about tomorrow, for tomorrow never comes". It is a fun song, which I enjoy listening to. But I would not rely on it to plan finances.

For most countries, the need for governments to spend on ever-increasing budgets has resulted in structural deficits. These structural differences are usually financed by borrowings, such as the issue of government bonds. Over time, the amounts owed in debt continue to increase, with governments often refinancing debt when it becomes due by issuing fresh bonds. The upshot of this is that most government budgets have to provide for debt service and interest payments as the regular part of expenditure, as they continue to carry the burden of past generations while trying to spend for the current generation.

Singapore has a very different starting point today. Thanks to prudent spending and management of reserves over decades, we have built up significant reserves. Part of the net investment income from these reserves now fund our annual Budget every year. The amount this is provided has grown significantly over the years, such that it is now the largest component of our annual Budget. This means Singaporeans have the benefit of receiving more than they pay in taxes every year in Government spending, similar to other countries but without the burden of that falling on the next generation.

For this benefit to continue for future generations, we must ensure that the reserves are preserved, prudently invested and that some of the returns also go back to the reserve to take into account the effects of inflation and if possible, allow for modest real growth as well; meaning, growth adjusted for inflation.

This is why I think the amendments of the Motion are important. Fiscally responsible and sustainable spending is an important component of this healthy financial situation Singapore is in, and from which Singaporeans can benefit on a sustainable basis. Our reserves are like the goose that lays the golden egg. We can get golden eggs at regular intervals as long as we do not kill the goose.

There is an old saying in Tamil, “பணம் இருப்பவனை தூங்கவிடாது. இல்லாதவனை வாழவிடாது.” That translates into: "The person with money will not be able to sleep. The person without money will not be able to live." In Singapore, we are in the privileged position of having money. What causes us sleepless nights is how to manage what we have and insecurity about how we can safeguard it for the future.

If we look at the big picture, Singaporeans have received generous support from the Government in almost all major aspects of day-to-day life. High-quality public housing is provided to around 80% of the population, more than any other country in the world as far as I am aware. These are launched at prices below the market price to all purchasers who can buy it at launch. And many purchasers get a host of additional subsidies as well, including first-timers and those living near parents. These subsidies are also made available for those who buy in the resale market.

Another important aspect, education, is almost completely subsidised. Government schools have generally nominal school fees at primary and secondary level. At tertiary level, all tertiary institutes, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnics and universities receive generous Government funding. There are additional bursaries and scholarships for those who need them. The aim is to be able to support everyone in their education journey, regardless of their background.

In relation to healthcare, while we have a principle of co-payment, generally healthcare at public hospitals is heavily subsidised for Singaporeans. For older generations, special packages such as Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation packages are also made available. These are tailored packages taking into account the needs of each generation and the circumstances they lived in. Thus, the Pioneer Generation, who worked at a time when incomes were much lower and generally have the least CPF, have the most generous package.

Now that we are wealthier, we are focusing not just on treating sick people but wide-ranging programmes to help keep people healthy and enjoy a good quality of life. This includes providing regular health screenings and a range of programmes under Healthier SG for people to adopt healthier lifestyles. Since 1959, when the PAP first came to power, our life expectancy has grown from 63.87 years to 84.39 years now, one of the longest in the world.

In relation to public transport, we have one of the most heavily subsidised public transport systems in the world, with our costs for taking buses and MRTs significantly less than many other developed countries such as the US, Europe and Japan. For the mass rapid transit (MRT) trains, the Government pays for the infrastructure, which is one of the most significant costs components and operators generally cover operating expenses. For buses, similarly, the Government now bears the cost of assets and tenders out operating of routes to operators. Notwithstanding, the public transport is losing money. The Government continues to expand the infrastructure, with new MRT lines opening up in more and more places. Each year, as the Budget allows, we continue to build steadily.

Finally, in relation to security with one of the most effective Home Teams and our Armed Forces are strong and respected. Despite being small, they are well-trained and well-equipped and have generally kept Singapore one of the safest places in the world.

Over and above all this, we are making long-term plans for Singapore's survivability in relation to climate change and, in particular, rising sea levels. This issue is likely to become pressing only in decades to come, but in order to prepare for it, we need to start spending and preparing now. These are luxuries we can plan and commit for only if we have prudent financial spending.

As far as public services are concerned, we probably have some of the best in the world and yet Singaporeans have among the lowest income taxes and consumption taxes in the world. The secret sauce in this is the combination of prudent spending and prudent use of income from reserves to subsidise expense requirements over the years.

One of the issues Singaporeans are coping with now is a higher cost of living. Again, we are one of the few governments that has a wide-ranging scheme of distributing vouchers to Singaporeans based on our Government Budgets. For the lowest-income Singaporeans, these vouchers would be significantly more than the increase in cost of living. Even for the middle income, it would cover substantial parts to the rise in cost of living. These are buffers that we are able to provide to people on a regular basis while remaining prudent in our spending.

Against this backdrop, let me address some of the substantive points made by the PSP and the WP.

The first point the PSP made is that we should reveal the size of reserves. Now, I think speakers from the financial industry, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Neil Parekh, have shared why they believed this would not be prudent. And I think for people experienced in the financial market typically, what they would say is that the time you get attacked is when you are at your weakest, such as for example, the Asian Financial Crisis. Against that backdrop, if people know the cards you have, you are in a weaker position. So, this is why it makes sense to keep that component secret.

But there could be more than that. Right now, we are living in a much more unstable world. Wars could take place; economic blockades could take place. If people know the depth of your financial reserves, they will know how long you can last. So, keeping some strategic ambiguity is important.

On this point, I note the WP has two slightly different positions. I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested there should be full transparency while Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh seemed to side approvingly, that it may be possible to keep a certain part of the reserves secret while keeping the rest open.

I would respectfully suggest that that second proposal is exactly what we have right now. A good part of the reserves are in the open, such as MAS' assets as well as Temasek's assets. It is only the third port, GIC, which is unknown. And even then, I think some earlier speakers such as Ms Hazel Poa tried to make educated guesses on this port. So, people out there in the markets may have a guest on the size of our reserves, but I think that little bit of strategic ambiguity is important.

I think the second point the WP made was that we need to know the size of the reserves in order to make prudent spending decisions. However, the WP does not advocate the use of the principle. I would respectfully submit that if you are not going to use the principle, then the only figures you need are the net investment returns, which you know. So, you can have a debate on that. They also made the argument that land sales revenue should be included. This is also known. So, in fact, what they need for policy-making purposes, based on what they have advocated, is already there. And I would respectfully say there is enough for open debates on policy.

The next point, I think the PSP made was that the revenue from the sale of land should not be charged to HDB. We have had a very, very long debate on this and I do not propose to rehearse that whole debate. But I think the main issues we had with this proposal was three-fold.

First of all, land is an asset, so as land gets more valuable that is one of the most important assets for land scarce Singapore. If we are going to use land for one purpose rather than another, it should be properly accounted for now. I think both the WP and the PSP suggest that revenue from land sales should be used for the spending we get each year. But what you are selling, in fact, is 99 years' worth of land which is an asset under any definition. If you spend all of it in a single year, you are essentially spending the principal. The more responsible way of dealing with it is the way we are dealing with it right now. Land is an asset even if sold at 99 years' leases. Since it is a translation of a physical asset into a cash asset, that cash goes into the reserves. And the income from that reserves will be part of the NIR. So, we are actually spending money from the land sales, while treating it in a financially responsible way. We are selling one asset and translating into another; therefore, it is still treated as an asset.

I think the two additional arguments that we went through in some detail about the effect of the PSP's housing policy was that, first of all, if you launch new HDB flats at prices that do not include land, they are likely to cause a crash on the existing market, because many other people have much higher HDB values which are significant assets for them. But if much cheaper HDB flats come out that is likely to cause a crash in the secondary market.

The second point we had in relation to that proposal was there is already a long queue for HDB flats because the launch price of HDB flat is below the market price. There are many people who can afford HDB flat at the current launch price – in fact, far more than there are flats available. So, if you make the price even lower, there will be a much higher demand; and much more people will be unable to get a flat.

I think this policy was roundly rejected by the House back then and so I do not plan to go into that, but that is the gist of my disagreements with that second aspect of the PSP policy.

Let me just deal with one final point. I think Mr Pritam Singh made a reference to an IPS study. In that study, I think he suggested that parties who attended were asking for more openness and he made the point that even the political Opposition was more trusted for input on the reserves, than journalists and the media.

I have managed to have a look at the study and one of the points he did not make in the study was that the entity that ranked the highest – and this was actually very humbling for me when I read it because there is quite a lot of cynicism out there – but the entity that was ranked the highest in the study for trust for input on the reserves was the PAP Government. This is on a scale of one to 10 – it was given a score of 7.26 on average by participants. Second was scholars, who were given a score of 6.27. Third was family members and close friends with a score of 6.1. Fourth was business leaders with a score of six. Fifth was financial analysts with the score of 5.9. Sixth was fellow citizens with the score of 5.76. And the political Opposition came in after all these, at 5.57.

So, in that sense, it is quite humbling to appreciate the trust that people have in the PAP Government. And I would respectfully say that this is because the reserves have been managed responsibly for a long time.

Singapore has enjoyed tremendous growth from third world to first, with responsible fiscal spending and saving. I do not think there is any need to change those policies. We can change the exact policies we apply from time to time, but I think fiscal prudence must remain a cornerstone of our spending.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

4.34 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications for the hon Member. The first is with regard to a point he makes about the proposal that I made. I think my proposal was really for a Select Committee; it was not so much on the two GICs, which I believe he mentioned. What I was doing was I was quoting from a Business Times article, which I had used, to make a point during my Budget 2020 debate speech.

The second point on the IPS working paper, indeed, I do not make a point which contradicts what he says. All I am saying is that the journalists and the media fell right at the bottom. And I think in his speech he did mention that there is a lot of cynicism out there. I think those are his exact words. So, I hope he understands the context of what I had said, with regard to the point on the IPS working paper.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I like to ask hon Member Mr Vikram Nair one question. He mentioned about the tension between present-day Singaporean, or the present generation and the future generation in terms of the use of the reserves. Can I ask him a question how much reserves are we accumulating every year? That means what is the rate of increase of our reserves every year? Does he have an idea on that?

Mr Vikram Nair: I do not have the answer off-hand, but I think it can be calculated based on NIR and other forms of income.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. The second question I like to ask him: does he have any idea what will be the cost to the reserves if we implement the policies that PSP has proposed?

Mr Vikram Nair: Mr Speaker, I think I have explained my disagreement with the policies in my speech. I do not propose to repeat that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Mr Speaker, so the fact if he does not know how much reserves we are accumulating every year and he does not know how much the policies proposed by PSP would cost the reserves. So, how does he come to the conclusion that there is a tension between the present generation and future generation, if we implement those policies?

Mr Vikram Nair: Mr Speaker, I think that is a simple point of principle. You save today, you are putting off today's consumption for tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, wait for me to call you before you come to the microphone. Yes, Mr Leong, you can ask now.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, thank you. I understand that there is some general principles and certain things are true, the more you save, the better for the future. But, in the course of the debate, we had mentioned that there is a cost to accumulating the reserves. So, as a result, we cannot just base our opinion on a general statement. He must know the facts. How much is being accumulated every year and how much would the policies the WP and PSP are recommending cost? I think that should be fair to say.

Mr Speaker: Mr Nair, do you want to respond to that? Or —

Mr Vikram Nair: I could give a simple response. Mr Speaker, I think the thrust of my speech is this. The Government and successive Governments have essentially built a nation with prudent spending. They have saved enough and the Government itself, which is the custodian of spending, is not saying it needs more money. So, to me the real job of the Opposition and the backbench is really to be a check on Government spending because there is usually a perverse incentive for government to spend too much.

So, if a government is saying that it can meet its current objectives with the current budget, there is no need to spend more. If the political Opposition is coming forward with different policies that require more spending, then it is for them to bear that onus to explain what the cost the policy is – not the Government.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just two clarifications from me, Mr Speaker, for Member Mr Nair.

The first is that he mentioned that there is no need for the Government to raise funds for additional spending. But that my understanding is that the reason why we even raised the GST was in part because of fiscal tightness. Of course, Mr Nair does not necessarily speak for the Government, so if I could invite the Government to clarify?

The second question I have is with regard to what he said about how if you have the NIRC and that is confirmed and we are not going to tap on the principal, then that is all the information we need. But surely, I am wondering if he would think that that information about the amount that is in the principal, is irrelevant if we are going to talk about how much of the NIR to return via the NIRC share, in into the reserves.

Mr Speaker: Mr Nair, do you wish to respond?

Mr Vikram Nair: I do not think my response will be different from the earlier one because this is not a case where the Government is asking for more spending, saying we need to spend more. So, I do not even think I need to respond.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I would like to clarify about the land sales proceeds. We did mention that we are proposing land sale proceeds to be treated as revenue to be divided over entire period of the lease. So, for example, if land is sold on a 99-year lease, then that land sale proceeds to be divided over 99 years as revenue and also at the end of the 99 years, the land actually reverts back to the Government. So, can Mr Nair explain why that is a depletion of the principal?

Mr Vikram Nair: Mr Speaker, generally, any sale of an asset should go back into the pool of assets. Land of anything even more than 30 years, is generally considered an asset. Companies, likewise. Companies may not last 99 years, but if you sell shares in a company that is also treated as an asset.

So, the sale of land, the sale of shares that the Government may hold, all of these must go back into the asset pool of the reserves. And, of course, any income that those assets derived can be spent as part of the NIRC.

That to me is the logical way of dealing with it. I mean, this is also I think in accounting standards – land of more than 30 years would be regarded as an asset, so, there is not a lot of controversy in this – at least from my point of view.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I think we need to make a distinction for land that is sold on leasehold. In the case of other assets like he mentioned like shares, once sold is gone forever. But leasehold land returns to Government.

Mr Speaker: Mr Nair? Go ahead.

Mr Vikram Nair: I think the point about shares is just more on the lifespan. Most companies now may not even last 30 years, 40 years. So, yes, it is gone forever, but how long you would have had it, even if you kept it?

So, whenever land becomes treated as an asset, say, by Standard Accounting Standards and so on, we should also feature it as an asset. I mean, that to me is simple honest accounting.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

4.42 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in our quest to safeguard the Singapore dollar, especially the volatilities of currency crises, it is important for a country to hold sufficient OFR. We have seen the dire consequences of not having enough in the tank during Thailand's ordeal in 1997. The country's struggle, stemming in part from currency speculation, led to a severe depletion of its OFR. This forced it to float its currency, triggering an economic crisis which affected the whole region, including Singapore.

MAS has assessed that the "optimal" amount of OFR it needs to provide a "strong buffer" against stresses in the global economy and market is between 65% and 75% of GDP. The central bank assessed this level based on internationally-accepted measures of reserve adequacy and its own practical experience in foreign exchange intervention to ensure the stability of the Singapore dollar.

Since the MAS (Amendment) Act came into force on 21 February 2022, MAS has been allowed to subscribe to Reserves Management Government Securities (RMGS). This allows the transfer of OFR to the Government for the long-term investment by GIC. This is OFR above what MAS needs to conduct monetary policy and support financial stability. Should there be a need to supplement the OFR on MAS’ balance sheet in the instance of a tail-risk event, it can redeem the RMGS before maturity at par.

Based on a Parliamentary reply by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to me, as at September 2023, MAS’ current OFR stood at S$455.5 billion or 70% of GDP, with the potential to ramp it up to 106% of GDP by redeeming the RMGS holdings of S$237.6 billion. This means MAS effectively has access to 31% more foreign reserves than the high end of the range it assesses to be optimal to defend the Singapore dollar.

The value of both MAS OFR and RMGS had been revealed publicly, so has the value of Temasek Holdings' net portfolio. What remains is the value of the reserves held by GIC, which it has only revealed is well over US$100 billion. It is estimated to be many multiples of that.

In a Parliamentary reply on 3 October 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Wong said that we need to brace for extreme tail-risk scenarios, including crises of unprecedented scale that could lead to significant capital outflows beyond MAS' reserves, or emergencies caused by state or non-state actors threatening our economy, livelihoods or national existence.

Sir, the spectre of extreme scenarios cannot be a carte blanche for maintaining a veil of secrecy over our reserves. Is the Government keeping the reserves held by GIC a secret only to prepare for extreme tail-risk scenarios? Or is it also to avoid questions from MPs and the public on why our substantial reserves are not being invested more in Singaporeans?

Greater transparency serves to both improve governance and foster a more inclusive and informed discussion about our nation's future. Transparency about the size of our reserves will facilitate more robust public discourse and democratic debate about our country's long-term Budget and expenditure plans. It will ensure that decisions regarding the use of our national wealth are made with the participation and understanding of citizens. Most importantly, it will increase accountability, as my hon friend from Sengkang, Jamus Lim, has explained in his speech, and build more trust in the Government.

Conversely, expecting MPs to scrutinise, debate and approve the Government Budget and each Ministry's allocation without full knowledge of our reserves is comparable to making a decision on buying a house without knowing how much money they have in the largest bank account.

Mr Speaker, I urge a review of the Government's stance on the secrecy of the reserves. If the Government wishes to maintain a strategic ambiguity regarding the full size of the reserves, the figures could be shared confidentially with MPs or with the cross-party standing finance Select Committee that looks into the health of our reserves and Government finances, which the Leader of the Opposition has proposed. This Parliamentary Committee will then be able to properly consider the specific funding needs vis-à-vis the threats that Singapore must prepare for and make recommendations to the Government on how these needs could be funded. Sir, I support the original Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

4.48 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Motion.

Singapore's reserves are critical assets and are vital for Singapore, as we have heard, many Members have already spoken about it. They are funds that Singapore can draw on during national emergencies, provide a source of investment income to finance part of the annual Government Budget and to maintain confidence in the value of the Singapore dollar through the exchange rate.

But as a small country with no natural resources and an open economy, having the base of assets to provide a steady flow of funds is key to ensure that we have a base to draw on to handle emergencies for the benefit and quality of life for Singaporeans now as well as planning for the future generations. We are a little red dot, and sometimes I worry that we forget that. We are not like many countries that have other pots of resources that they can draw on. We are not talking about just protecting the Singapore dollar. We are not talking about just protecting the currency. It is important. We have seen in recent times what has happened to countries. Things we cannot predict, on top of things in terms of natural calamities as well. So, I would like to remind the House that we are talking about the livelihoods, the lives of Singaporeans, present and the future, and, like Mr Liang Eng Hwa, I implore that we really take a fiscally responsible position and approach to this.

As we witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore was able to draw on the reserves to take decisive actions to protect and support Singaporeans. Yes, there was still pain; yes, there were still challenges. But we were able to make choices, take action quickly and ensure that we kept Singaporeans in a better position.

An example is the Job Support Scheme introduced in the Unity Budget in February 2020. This provided wage support for employers. It is very important to retain local workers so that people kept their jobs. So, they kept their incomes. At the same time, companies could continue to function and, more importantly, retain their talent, and when things recover, to recover. It is not a trivial matter. If we talk about accountability, accountability is not just in how much funds we have and how we are managing the funds, but also how the funds are used and the impact it has on lives of Singaporeans. So, I really implore that everyone, let us not forget, as we talk about numbers, we are talking about people as well.

The impact: the amount that was spent on JSS was about $28 billion. And a total – just to remind everyone – of an estimated 165,000 local jobs were preserved. Of course, there was still impact on people's jobs, but it could have been worse. And as I said, by retaining the staff, it allowed things to recover faster when the tides improved.

So, the key principles adopted by the Government to stay fiscally responsible and sustainable, the two key principles that we need to keep in mind and keep the course on that – and what are they? One, it is not just about the reserves, but it is also the balanced Budget, the balanced Budget approach, and that we do not spend more than what we have in that term of Government, so that we do not accumulate debt.

And of course, protecting the reserves and that we only spend part of it, so that, at the same time, we can continue to reinvest the reserves and protect it for when we need it. The reserves are protected also by the fact that there is a second key. The Government can only draw on the Past Reserves with the approval of the President.

With the current geopolitical tensions, global disruptions and rising costs, it is appealing for all of us to ask for more of the NIRC to be made available to alleviate cost, because people are feeling the cost of living pressures. While this does sound attractive, we need to understand what the implications are.

NIRC is a large contributor to the annual Budget at 20% for FY2022, and estimated to be the second largest for FY2023. As outlined in MOF’s Occasional Paper on the Medium-Term Fiscal Projections, and with geopolitical tensions and uncertainties as well as addressing internal needs of an ageing population, while refreshing our infrastructure and responding to other challenges like climate change, we do have to continue to maintain and accumulate our reserves. If we do not, we will also impact the stream of Budget revenue. Ultimately, it will impact also the taxes that we will have to raise if that base gets eroded.

I do also want to talk about the geopolitical tensions and what our people are facing. What we are experiencing are unprecedented challenges and disruptions caused by the tensions we see, conflicts and also climate change. These are affecting costs and it is becoming more prolonged than we anticipated, from the pandemic to the strained US-China relations, the Ukraine-Russian conflict, the situation in Gaza and the Red Sea. I do not think I need to remind everyone of the challenges we are facing. This is impacting cost of living, and not just for Singapore, but across all countries.

There have been measures to help Singaporeans cope with the elevated costs. For example, to help with inflation and the higher GST, there was the Assurance and the Enhanced Assurance package, for all Singaporeans aged 21 and above. The cash payouts were, of course, disbursed across 2022 to 2026 and there is a certain amount that everyone will get, depending on your property ownership. An estimated 2.9 million adult Singaporeans will benefit from this Package. There was also the Cost of Living Package and the CDC vouchers. The CDC vouchers were provided to each household. The most recent disbursement was in January this year where every Singaporean household received $500 in CDC vouchers.

Government spending on other key areas are also equally important. On education, childcare, healthcare, senior care, training, infrastructure to grow the economy, we must continue to make these important investments to ensure inclusive growth. With the volatile geopolitical environment, Singapore will need to maintain significant investments in security and to invest and strengthen our preparedness and resilience against future disruptions by securing critical supplies for energy and food. The effects are long term and, sometimes, because the effects are long term, we forget and it is difficult for us to see the impact on the lives of Singaporeans today as well for the future.

But rising cost of living is impacting not only the vulnerable and the lower-income in Singapore. Singapore is an open economy. We import most of our goods and services and we are a price taker.

With smaller families and people marrying later, or some remaining single, many have to care for both the young and the elderly. With an ageing population, we have more mature workers and people retiring or retired and their incomes may be lower due to job changes, re-employment or they may have no active income. With the rising cost of living and the prolonged disruptions, these segments are feeling the strain of the rising cost of living.

The reason why I am saying this is because half of the residents in my constituency live in private property, and the majority are in private apartments and terraces. Because our system of tax is progressive and it is means-tested for most of the support measures, many of the households do not meet the eligibility criteria and they do not receive the full benefits of some of the support packages. But I do want to say that given the current prolonged nature of the uncertainties and the slower growth, we may have to look at doing more for this group of people.

I would just like to conclude and say that as the situation is likely to be prolonged, it is all the more important that the measures we take are sustainable. The key is finding that balance with spending for today to support the current needs of Singaporeans to improve their quality of life, while doing it in a manner that will allow us to continue to invest for future needs and growth. The reality is that funding comes from taxes, from how we spend our Past Reserves and how we accumulate our reserves, and hence adhering to the principles of not spending more than the revenue within that term of government and protecting our Past Reserves has and will enable us to achieve this balance. So, I would say that I cannot support the original Motion, and I support the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my Parliamentary colleagues from the WP have set forth our party's position on the reserves. Under the NIR framework, the Government can spend up to 50% of the long-term expected real returns on relevant assets. So, up to 50% of the net returns from the reserves flow back to the Singapore Budget through NIRC. The estimate of NIRC is, of course, dependent on both the size of the net asset base, as well as the investment rate of return that can be expected to be earned over the long term after netting off inflation.

Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, has shared how we should be more open about our reserves and reveal figures not for their own sake but so as to facilitate mature conversations on the reserves to take place. In my view, the principles of transparency and accountability extend to not just the size of the reserves per se but also to the investment returns generated by those charged with the responsibility.

Why is this important? While the real rate of returns is, by definition, dependent on estimates of future inflation, which may not be entirely under the control of the Government, given both domestic and global factors at play, the ability to earn superior risk-adjusted returns is a key driver of NIRC and, by extension, its contributions to the Budget.

As my Parliamentary colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim shared, our nation's reserves belong to the people, not the Government of the day. It is important for the stewards of the reserves to be accountable to not just the Government but to all Singaporeans, the key stakeholders of our reserves. It is in this interest of accountability to the people or Singaporeans, that I hope that GIC will adequately disclose its detailed investment performance, both in absolute and relative terms, as well as corresponding risk analytics and on an at least annual basis, rather than merely on longer-term rolling time horizons.

After all, if Temasek Holdings readily disclose such information on an annual basis, what is the justification for GIC not being able to do so? Further, it is not for the lack of such information that disclosure is not forthcoming. GIC produces quarterly and even monthly reports to the Government through the Accountant-General of Singapore containing its financial statements, detailed holdings, bank account balances, detailed performance and risk analytics, as well as the distribution of the portfolio by asset class, country and currency.

In addition to ensuring there is performance accountability, I would say another important aspect of ensuring that the entities managing our reserves deliver on the objective of generating good longer-term real returns, is to ensure that all Singaporeans will be able to directly participate in such returns. I recognise that, at present, this is achieved indirectly via the NIRC component of the annual Government budget. But what is preventing the Government from allowing regular citizens, like you and me, from benefiting from the Government's fund manager, GIC?

If the goal is to help present-day Singaporeans reduce their financial burdens and improve their quality of life, while continuing to save for future generations of Singaporeans – and if I may add, ensure that present-day Singaporeans can save for their own retirement – it is imperative upon us to allow our citizens to benefit from higher investment returns in the long-term, with adequate safeguards in place.

This is especially pertinent when we consider the source of funds for the GIC in the first place. As stated in the GIC’s Governance Overview, its source of funds includes proceeds from the issuance of Singapore Government Securities (SGS) and Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), Government budget surpluses and proceeds from the Government's land sales.

What is so special about these Special Singapore Government Securities? Well, Singaporeans' CPF funds are invested in these SSGS issued by the Government, specifically to the CPF Board for the investment of CPF savings. The coupon rates for the SSGS bonds are pegged to rates at which the Board pays interest to the members of CPF. In other words, the CPF Board earns fixed interest income from the Government for these CPF funds.

Can we not allow GIC's returns to be passed through to CPF members? The CPF Board's FAQ answers this question by stating that, "Unlike in an arrangement where GIC's returns are fully passed through to CPF members, the current arrangement means that CPF members bear no investment risk at all and CPF savings are safe regardless of GIC's performance". My question is, do we have such little confidence in the long-term investment performance of the GIC?

If we look across to our Malaysian neighbour, its Employee Provident Fund (EPF) guarantees for its members a minimum dividend rate of 2.5%, with the actual dividend rate based on the performance of its investments. In the last 20 years, this has ranged from about 4.5% to 6.9%.

The difference between the current CPF interest rates, especially Ordinary Account (OA) rates of 2.5% and the long-term nominal returns of the GIC portfolio are non-trivial. Based on the 20-year nominal returns of the GIC portfolio of 6.9% and the CPF-OA rate of 2.5%, just based on a simple rule of 72, the number of years it takes for our CPF monies to double goes from about 10 years based on GIC's returns, to 29 years based on the prevailing CPF OA rate. The effects on our ability to save for our own retirement is clearly tremendous.

Moreover, CPF members can already invest their CPF monies, subject to certain safeguards such as minimum account balances and investment limits. Allowing CPF members to benefit from GIC's portfolio even to a modest degree, with percentage or dollar amount restrictions in place, can make a huge difference in enabling more CPF members to better save for their retirement, and especially so for those who are not financially literate or savvy enough to do so themselves in the first place.

In each of the last three years, I have been urging the Government to implement the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS) to better support Singaporeans' retirement needs. And based on public records, GIC's 20-year returns have been consistently above the 2.5% interest rate offered to OA.

Should the average Singaporean get access to the diversified investment portfolio of GIC, CPF members could get closer to retirement adequacy in a way that minimises the risk of short-term market volatility and protect their purchasing power against not just local inflation, but global inflation. I urge the Government to allow Singaporeans to directly benefit from our reserves management framework, to help both present-day Singaporeans and future generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, earlier, Leader of Opposition Mr Pritam Singh outlined the Workers' Party's five principles regarding reserves, as well as three key points.

The first point is: the Government should be more open and transparent about our reserves. In fact, revealing the figure is not the key; the main purpose is to enable the public to have more mature conversations on the reserves.

The second point is: the Government should not rule out using more than the current 50% of the Net Investment Returns Contributions (NIRC) to alleviate the burden on Singaporeans. In 2018, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, when asked about this percentage, said in Parliament, "永远不能把话说得太过绝对" (never say never), although he also made some clarifications a few years later.

The third point is: the public generally believes that the reserves may continue to grow continuously through the sale of land, as the proceeds from the sale of land cannot be used for Government expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, while it is important to be prepared for the future, but now we are facing rising geopolitical risks, global economic downturn, and ever faster structural economic changes. Moreover, the issue of rising cost of living has become an urgent concern for many ordinary people.

Singaporeans’ livelihood is already facing problems, but the Government is reluctant to use more of the NIRC to alleviate their burden.

The Workers' Party proposes to use more of the NIRC to alleviate people's burden. The intention is not to raid the reserves, nor is it "寅吃卯粮 (eating next year's grain this year)", as misinterpreted by the DPM.

We simply hope to achieve a better balance: the reserves will continue to grow, but at a slower pace, so that we can take care of the livelihood of this generation of Singaporeans, provide timely assistance to the people, and continue to save for future generations.

(In English): I support the original Motion as filed by Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in the Chamber for over six-and-a-half hours, so, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.07 pm until 5.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Public Finances

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

5.30 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments proposed by member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Before I proceed, I would like to declare that I am an employee and work in a financial institution in Singapore

Singapore’s prudent fiscal and reserves policies has contributed to the progress we have seen since Independence and has created the conditions for macroeconomic stability, supported economic growth, and promoted social equity. Sound and prudent fiscal policies have enabled us to build up fiscal reserves that act as our national crisis fund and, in normal times, provide a steady stream of non-tax revenue to complement our tax revenue. What the Singapore Government has gained from years of fiscal rectitude is confidence and credibility as well as the flexibility and financial resources to deal with crises, such as the one experienced in 2008/2009, and respond to longer-term challenges.

As Singapore grapples with the challenges of globalisation, an ageing population and income inequality, the Government’s fiscal resources as well as its capacity for constant adaptation will be critical assets. A quote by Krishna Srinivasan and Lamin Leigh, IMF Director of the IMF’s Asia and Pacific Department, and Singapore and Malaysia Mission Chief in IMF's Asia and Pacific Department, respectively, noted in the IMF's Country Focus in August 2022 that “should further risks materialise beyond what is currently envisaged, Singapore can deploy its ample fiscal buffers to cushion the economic impact.”

Why I mention that quote is to highlight the importance of Singapore's fiscal buffers, reserves and its prudent budget policies that has actually put us in good stead.

Going forward, Singapore is unlikely to experience the high economic growth and large fiscal surpluses of the 1990s. Instead, we face multiple challenges that will shrink our fiscal space. It is all the more important to ensure that our public finances remain sustainable to support our future progress.

I would like to share, Mr Deputy Speaker, my thoughts on a few things about Singapore’s fiscal policy and reserves policy approach, which I feel should stay responsible and sustainable, given our unique context both economically and constitutionally.

First, our medium-term orientation, medium- to long-term focus in fiscal policy and public financing. Fiscal policy in Singapore is characterised by a strong emphasis on medium- and long-term objectives and has put us in good stead. It has evolved over time. In partiuclar, our reserves accumulation, which has helped us to tide through difficult times.

I highlighted earlier that I work in the financial sector in a financial institution. When I meet market participants or clients in the markets in various countries in the region, the main focus for them as investors who are probably pension funds and longer-term investors, is the ability for a country to think objectively in a medium to longer term. And so, Singapore's ability to focus and have a medium-term orientation going forward is a very strong key thrust for policy in Singapore. I think our reserves accumulation has allowed us to move in that direction. The ability to accumulate reserves in a comfortable manner, in a more consistent and sustained manner where we can project with more certainty; it has allowed investors to assess us with a medium- to longer-term focus, in terms of public financing and fiscal policy.

In fact, Singapore's public spending has evolved to meet our medium- to long-term objectives. Government spending stands now at around 18% of GDP. MOF in its occasional paper states it expects to it increase to around 19% to 20% of GDP in the FY2026 to 2030 period, and possibly exceed 20% of GDP by FY2030. A key driver for this increase is the Government health expenditure. This is due to our ageing population, rising utilisation of healthcare and medical inflation.

I just want to highlight that we also enjoy additional non-tax revenues through the NIRC. The NIRC has averaged around 3.5% of GDP and we expect it to remain at about the same share of GDP over the coming years. Therefore, the total revenue is now about 18.5% of GDP.

This would not have been sufficient to cover the increase in Government spending expected over the coming years. That is why the tax changes announced in Budget 2022, including the GST increase, were necessary to close the funding gap.

Notwithstanding the emphasis on medium-term growth, the MOF has been sensitive to cyclical considerations in recent decades. When Singapore experienced slower economic growth and higher volatility in the late 1990s, early 2000s and the Global Financial Crisis, the Government pursued more accommodative fiscal policies, increased transfers to households and provided various relief measures to businesses. The point here is about medium-term considerations and why reserves accumulation has contributed to a much more comfortable situation for Singapore to focus on that medium- to long-term focus.

The second point that I just want to highlight is about the ever-increasing risk of short-term discretion. Limits to short term discretion should be untouched, in my view, and I think some of the discussions that were made earlier by other Members here, come close to short-term discretionary changes.

Fortunately, fiscal policy has been oriented at medium-term objectives because of the important constitutional context in which policy-makers operate. The constitutional safeguards that have been put in place since the early 1990s to protect Singapore’s past reserves also limit the room for short-term discretion. And I think it is very important to ensure that those safeguards remain unchanged or if any changes are to be made, they need to be considered very closely.

Members have discussed these earlier, but the key elements include no drawing on past reserves; 50% NIR spending rule; the fair market value principle; and the two-key mechanism. My view is, they create strong incentives for the Government to err on the side of caution, to accumulate surpluses in good years during its term of office as a buffer against lean years when it may have to run budget deficits. Rather than assessing over the one year cycle and having to look at it from a demand management perspective, it is very important to see a multi-year cycle approach.

I continue to support this approach to reduce the risk of discretion creeping in going forward. But at the same time, we must understand also, if there are any extra suggestions on revenue, or changes to these safeguards, I think associated trade-offs of any new suggested revenue options are key, as the economy and challenges evolve and change over time. The associated inter-generational trade-off is also key.

The next generation is not here to argue their case, why we are spending their money now. We may think that we have a lot of money now, but we do not know what economic and social as well as other challenges they face in 50 years or 100 years' time.

Before I proceed in the Malay section, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to highlight a few points in terms of my concerns about the Singapore dollar discussion that was made earlier by some of the Members.

On the Singapore dollar front, I highlight latest data from BIS Triennial 2022 which shows that Singapore dollar foreign exchange (forex) turnover is about US$182 billion in terms of daily average turnover, 2% of total market value. And this is about $6.6 trillion from the BIS survey in terms of global forex turnover.

The daily global average of April 2022 of the BIS Triennial survey highlights that the Singapore dollar forex turnover of $182 billion in US dollar terms is actually quite substantial, on a daily basis. Some Members had highlighted the rough estimates of about $1.2 trillion value in reserves. That actual amount is quite minute – if the forex markets move in within six to seven days against the Singapore dollar, it could wipe out slightly more than S$1 trillion in terms of dollar amounts, very rapidly. So, I just wanted to highlight that. I think there was further discussion and I had a bit of concern. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak in Malay now.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our policy on reserves allows us to redistribute taxes to create a positive impact on the Malay community and the rest of society in Singapore.

While Singapore's fiscal regime has grown to meet the changing needs of the economy and continues to support economic growth, Singapore has also experienced increasing challenges including recession, external factors and concerns of income inequality particularly in the decades after the Asian financial crisis decades.

For the Singapore Government, ensuring that the fruits of economic growth are shared has always been on its agenda. In fact, one key fiscal strategy of MOF or the Government is to ensure a progressive tax and transfer system, with low-income households receiving more benefits than taxes paid and ensuring a fair balance between the needs of the current and future generations.

Singapore's policy on reserves has enabled the Government to provide more support by investing in many areas, especially in education, home ownership, healthcare and social infrastructure, to ensure that economic growth provides comprehensive benefits to the people. In essence, Singaporeans were given opportunities throughout the years to improve their lives and participate in economic growth.

In terms of spending, there is an emphasis on investments in the long-term also, especially on Singaporeans in order to give them the opportunity to participate in economic growth. This approach supports the Government's spending policy in two key areas where it has made the biggest improvement to the livelihood of Singaporeans — namely, education and public housing.

There are many examples of how Singapore's policy on reserves and the Government's management of the budget have resulted in a lot of meaningful spending, in terms of social spending and in terms of the main subsidy that is given not as a cash transfer, but as a benefit in the form of goods.

Hence, against the current global background, the Government also implemented various measures to provide targeted assistance to the lower income group, providing offsets and subsidies to help ease the burden of households and the implementation of policy initiatives on a staggered basis, as well as progressively increase wages for low-wage workers.

Therefore, in addition to that, the Government has also extended significant support to manage cost of living in the form of support packages, starting with the Household Support Package and the CDC vouchers, as well as increasing social equality by extending as much opportunities as possible. And in terms of taxes, our country imposes a relatively low tax burden on workers. Hence, Singapore's personal income tax rate is among the lowest in the world. It is also a relatively progressive system where only about 40% of the workforce pays any income tax at all.

In addition, the Singapore currency is also stable and provides Singaporeans with a strong purchasing power. So, as several Members had mentioned earlier, the stability of the Singapore currency does not happen on its own; it happens because of our good policy on reserves and our budget policy that is solid, sound and based on strong principles, thus providing opportunities for Singaporean workers, our people, to get good jobs, and also to support past and future budgets.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, one thing that I think this whole House can agree on is that the ongoing cost of living pressures which form a key issue that we must continue to manage today. But what we need to be careful about is how we go about addressing the issue. That is my concern. If you add additional flexibility of short-term discretion to our framework, it affects our fiscal sustainability and the credibility we have built over time.

Today, the Government is already tapping on our reserves to pay for the needs of Singaporeans. Through the NIRC, 50% of the net investment returns or income on our reserves are used to fund about 20% of our annual budget. This then goes into things like the Assurance Package which saw most households receive $500 Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and more to spend on food, groceries and other necessities. Without the NIRC, that means the Government would need to collect 25% more of revenue, most likely through increased taxes.

So, it is tempting to suggest increasing the NIRC and use more of our reserves for Singaporeans today. But every extra dollar used today means one dollar less for the future generation, or even one dollar less for us which will be surviving in the future.

The world today is more challenging to navigate than 50 years ago. Today, we have less untapped capacity to develop, whereas global competition is getting fiercer. I would not be surprised if our children and grandchildren have to deal with even more challenging conditions 50 years from now.

So, as any parent would tell you, the best we can do is to make sure that they are put in the best position to confront and conquer those challenges. Hence, the Government has set the NIRC at 50%, half for the present generation and half for the future generation. The generations that came before us left sufficient reserves for us today. It is not for us to be selfish at the expense of our children and future generations.

One exception that we make to the fair 50-50 split is the power to drawdown on Past Reserves to support us in a crisis.

In the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, our reserves were deployed to provide the Singapore dollar with stability. Today, MAS continues to utilise our OFR to implement its monetary policy through managing the Singapore dollar's appreciation band. That has helped us to fight off imported inflationary pressures.

Similarly, in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, we could dip into $4.9 billion of our reserves to support schemes to help workers retain jobs and offer liquidity to companies as well as for risk-sharing purposes. These measures worked and we were one of the fastest-growing economies in 2010.

So, I think it is quite clear that our reserves policy has been helping Singaporeans. And in my Malay speech earlier, our reserves policy has provided a bedrock for our medium-term and long-term policy objectives and also allowed us to reap benefits for all citizens through our Budgets, year in, year out, and for emergency cases.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my view that the answer to the global cost-of-living issue is not to look at our reserves and strip it of more eggs each time. It is a finite resource. Instead, each of us needs to make a collective effort to manage our costs and finances and step up to help those who are less well-off. These can be simple steps, such as caring for our own parents by topping up their CPF Retirement Accounts and gaining more financial literacy to plan and adjust our finances effectively. And I am confident that the Government will stand ready to help, whether through one-time assistance schemes or longer-term solutions, such as enhancing retirement schemes and associated investment options.

Singapore's fiscal strength is a key competitive advantage for our nation. As I mentioned, when I go abroad and talk to market participants and clients, our public finances, our reserves policy, lend credence to us making medium- to long-term policy decisions which add a bit of stability in terms of investors' assessment of us and it leads to probably positive credit rating outlook as well.

So, as our spending needs continue to rise, we must make sure that our revenues grow at a comparable pace to maintain a sound and sustainable fiscal system. I am certain the Government will continue to review and adjust our fiscal strategies to support our shared aspirations in a way that is fair to both present and future generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion by Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

5.48 pm

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by quoting Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Actually, I kept this quote in my phone for a very long time and I thought, some day, I will need to use it and I think it may be appropriate for me to use it today.

Sir, in September 2011, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "I hope the Prime Minister and his Cabinet ensure that Singapore veers on the side of prudence and balance the Budget and not raid on its reserves which have been protected by a separately Elected President. Otherwise, you have the Opposition saying, 'If you vote for me, I will give you all these things'." Where will the money come from? Not from taxes but our reserves." Sir, I think Mr Lee is prescient. He said this 13 years ago and I think this is exactly what is happening today as we debate this Motion.

Sir, there are two issues that the hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa have raised in their Motion. One is how you accumulate reserves; and two, how you plan Budgets. They also acknowledge that we must save for future generations. I think that is a start.

Let us start by talking about Budgets. Budgets are really a hit-and-miss affair and one cannot be very accurate. Let us take Hong Kong, for example. They have the same financial year as Singapore. It runs from April to March. For the period April 2023 to March 2024, they announced in February 2023 a predicted Budget deficit of HK$54.4 billion. However, it was announced recently that in the first eight months of their financial year, the government has accumulated a deficit of HK$164 billion, three times the predicted deficit and there are another four more months to go. The lesson here is that things can turn sharply and for the worse in a world full of uncertainty and it is still better to plan and budget conservatively.

Sir, I have observed, in the course of today's debate, I think the Members of the Opposition have made one very wrong assumption. They have assumed, when they talked about NIRC, that there will always be a return on capital, that whatever you invest will always give you a return.

In uncertain times, such as this, this is not necessarily true because, from time to time, you can make the wrong call and your investments can be zero. But, of course, we are fortunate that we have our capable people at Temasek, GIC and MAS. From time to time, they can get it wrong, but we cannot always assume that your capital is intact. So, think about it. Do not just talk about return on capital. Talk about return of capital because you cannot assume that will always happen.

Sir, the next issue I want to talk about is how we accumulate surpluses. In truth, there are only three ways to accumulate significant surpluses in Singapore. One, through budgetary surpluses because we spend much less than we collect in terms of taxes and fees every year. Two, land sales, which Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa have spoken about. Three, by not spending all the returns from our investments which we have made with our reserves. There is a fourth way, which is through the sale of resources. But since we do not have stuffs like oil or metal ores in our 734 square kilometres of ground, this route is out.

Sir, the size of our reserves is not small. There is no hiding that. It is adequate as a deterrent so that no one today will ever think of attacking the Singapore dollar. But it would be foolish for us to reveal the exact size of our reserves, just as no country reveals the exact amount of military assets it has. It can be spent down rather quickly. And then, someone might think of attacking the Singapore dollar. Do not ever think that we are forever immune. If George Soros can bring the once mighty Sterling Pound to its knees – I think it was in 1992 – the Singapore dollar can be brought down, too, if we are not careful.

Sir, another point is that I fear that the years of large budgetary surpluses may be over for Singapore, simply because the demographics do not allow it. In Singapore, the old age support ratio is defined as the number of people aged 20 to 64 to the number of people aged 65 and older. In 1990, this ratio in Singapore was 10.5. In other words, there were 10.5 persons supporting one elderly. In 2023, the ratio has dropped to 3.7. As a general rule, working-age adults generally consume more and contribute more to Government revenue, while the elderly pay little or no taxes but consume more Government revenue, which is also why we have to raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to widen the tax base and so that we can balance the books.

Places like Malaysia and Hong Kong, which do not have a GST, are finding it increasingly difficult to balance their books. And if you cannot balance your books, you do not talk about savings for future generations. So, the bottom line, going forward, is that huge budget surpluses will be a thing of the past, given the realities of our demographics.

The next point I would like to talk about is land sales. I think we are very fortunate that our PAP founding fathers were wise to ensure that land sales do not fund the Government's day-to-day operations. It is very tempting to do so. Hong Kong has relied on land sales significantly to balance the budget. But that is also why once the property market turns anaemic, the government is strapped for cash. In Singapore, the Government of the day can only use the tax revenue, such as stamp duties and taxes from land sales, to fund its operations. The price paid for the land goes into the reserves. I think this is good discipline.

Sir, at this juncture, I would like to respond to what Ms Hazel Poa commented on just now. She is saying that, for discussion purposes, even land is sold for 100 years and if the land is sold for $100 million, then, every year, you take out $1 million and let the Government spend it. I think that is what she meant. It cannot work. Let me tell you why it cannot work.

Because if you take out $1 million from Year One and let it be spent for the people, that $99 million is locked in there. What am I supposed to do? You want me to invest it? Because investments can turn sour, as I have said just now, return of capital and return on capital. So, in other words, she is saying every year, you put $1 million back to the people. It cannot work.

But if I put this $100 million back into Government reserves, I think our smart people at GIC, Temasek or MAS, maybe can generate a return of 2% or 3% and it is more money for our people. That is the point I want to respond to.

Sir, the third avenue that we can generate reserves is the returns from our investments mainly through GIC, MAS and Temasek. We have decided on a 50-50 formula which I think, for now, it is good. Only up to 50% of the NIRC can be used by the Government. This means that the current generation enjoys half of the returns while the other half goes back into the reserves for future generations. This is no rocket science.

But more importantly, both philosophically and mathematically, it means that the present generation takes half the returns from the reserves that the previous generations of Singaporeans have left to the present generation and, in turn, the present generation leaves half of what the past has given them to future generations. In other words, we are saying the Government of the day values the current generation as much as it values future generations of Singaporeans. It is also, I believe, a very Asian way of doing things. We believe that we should leave something for our future generations in the hope that they will have a better life than us and they have something to rely on, especially on a rainy day.

This is opposed to many countries where older citizens enjoy the welfare benefits funded by younger citizens' taxes. This is commonly known as intergenerational transfer of liabilities and has led to friction among communities elsewhere. Instead, in Singapore, under the PAP Government, we have the opposite. We have intergenerational transfer of assets. And I would suggest let us keep it that way.

Sir, I would like to touch on another point but, before I do that, I have to state my position is that I agree that we should have 50-50 as far as the NIRC is concerned. But I may be opening a pandora's box as I make my next comment.

Sir, if you are to review the Budget of 2023, operating revenue was about $96 billion, NIRC was about $24 billion, same as corporate income tax, giving a total revenue of about $120 billion. So, what it means that if I take NIRC as a percentage of total Government revenue, it is 20%. From a risk management point of view, having 20% coming from what I ‒ my personal view ‒ feel is a passive sort of income, is not low.

To me, NIRC is like passive income. We have it because our 1G, 2G and 3G leaders left it for us. As much as we have capable, intelligent people earning the money, to me, it is very akin to passive income and if your passive income is 20% of your total revenue, it is not small, you know.

So, if I have an aim for Singapore, I do not know if it is too much to ask, I think it is too much to ask for the budget to be announced next week; but maybe by the end of this decade, our corporate income tax revenue can exceed NIR. I think it must. Well, that is my ask.

Which is also why I was very happy when I read last week in the newspapers that our corporate income tax revenue for the first nine months is about $23.9 billion, comparable to what we have budgeted for the entire year for corporate income tax revenue. Which means to say that for this year we can be certain that corporate income tax revenue will outstrip NRIC and that is a good thing. And I do not know it is in time – but I hope the Government can give part of this back to the people when you announce the budget next week.

I am particularly excited about the Majulah Package which the Prime Minister has announced during National Day Rally and I am sure all of us in the House look forward to that – people age 50 years and above, people like me.

Sir, I like to respond to some of the points that have been raised. Mr Leong Mun Wai at the beginning of his speech mentioned that our reserves are not from natural resources. They are from the blood and sweat of Singaporeans.

My response is, but of course, as a young man, I have come to realise that being a Singaporean means the easy things in life would never come to look for you. You have to work for your living. You have to save for your living and you have to have the right government to give you the guidance. That is the spirit of our people. United we stand, divided we fall. The objective of all of us in this House, every man, every woman, every child standing with us, is that we must provide as good a life for our fellow Singaporeans for as long as it is possible.

I think both Mr Leong and Ms Poa also mentioned about the Affordability Housing Scheme. Basically, they are saying that we should give more subsidies and make the flats cheaper. They had spoken about it previously.

Let me share with Members what is happening on the ground in Potong Pasir. I took a walk in Potong Pasir last weekend, particularly in Bidadari which comes under Potong Pasir estate and there were some who came up to me and said, "Mr Sitoh, we are very irritated and annoyed". And I asked them, "Why, what happened?" And they said, "We are the first batch of Bidadari flats and our minimum occupation period (MOP) is coming out in a matter of months this year and we have property agents, unsolicited, knocking on our doors, telling us to sell our flats because they can give us a price that is way above what we bought them for." I would not mention the price because I do not want to influence market forces. So, I asked them, "What do you want to do?" They said, "No, we are not selling. Of course, we are not selling. This is a good environment to live in."

But my point is – why are all these property agents knocking on the doors of these residents? Because they know the intrinsic value of these flats is significantly higher than what HDB had sold them for. And you are saying that it should even be cheaper. I am not sure.

Sir, please allow me to move on to my Mandarin speech.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Leong and Ms Poa suggested in their Motion that the amount of our reserves should be made public. I do not understand why they want to do this. If we were to make it public, what would be the objective? Does anyone want to know the amount of our reserves? Of course! many people do, including hedge funds. Because many funds are interested in our stock market and the Singapore dollar and may want to attack us. Even if I were to tell you, what purpose would it serve? If I were to tell you, it might satisfy your curiosity. But satisfying your curiosity is momentary, just like watching fireworks – once the fireworks are over, it is over. But the consequences could be very serious, unimaginable. Because we are a small country, we do not want anyone to know where our bottom line is, because if others know your bottom line, they will know how to attack you.

Therefore, we want to lead our fellow Singaporeans on the path of sunlight and not allow those hedge funds to develop any ill intentions towards our industries. Because that is entering into darkness; and this darkness is not the darkness before dawn, because the darkness before dawn is also momentary, a fleeting moment, as the sun is about to rise; this kind of darkness is long, painful, because it is like the darkness after dusk, very long and in the deep night, you can hardly see anything. So, I will say it again, we want to walk on the path of sunlight, and the Government will lead us.

Another point. Just now, some opposition members mentioned the rise in the cost of living. I understand, inflation is a big issue. Because of this, the Government has introduced a series of programs. I do not know if everyone has heard an old saying, "Every difficulty can be overcome." In our journey, in a country's journey, there are certainly many difficult stages, but as long as fellow Singaporeans unite, work hard and have a common goal, we will definitely overcome every difficulty.

6.07 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.

6.09 pm

The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the Motion in its original form as moved by the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa. However, I support the amendments to the Motion as proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa, and let me explain why.

On the face of it, the PSP’s Motion seems unobjectionable. After all, what is wrong with calling on the Government to review its current budget and reserve accumulation policies in order to help present-day Singaporeans with their financial burdens and improve their quality of life? However, when you look at it carefully, the Motion implies various things which I cannot agree with.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

First, it suggests that the Government is over-accumulating surpluses and reserves at the expense of present-day Singaporeans, and is not helping them financially or doing anything to improve their quality of life. Second, it suggests that we are unfairly prioritising future generations over the current generation. Both are incorrect.

Further, in their speeches in support of the Motion, PSP essentially suggests that the Government has excess fiscal resources which are not being spent on Singaporeans and that there would be even more fiscal resources available if only we changed our reserves policies. We do not agree with that either.

As such, I cannot support the original Motion. However, I fully agree with the amended Motion – the thrust of which calls on the Government to ensure that our budget and reserves accumulation policies always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable in order to provide for the current generation as well as future generations.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim made the point that he could not support the amended Motion because it precluded the possibility of a review. Actually, the amended Motion does not do that. If you look at the wording and it says that, "this House calls on the Government to ensure its budget and reserve accumulation policies always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable in order to help", et cetera. Ensuring that something always stays fiscally responsible and sustainable does not preclude a review, because from time to time you may have to make changes if necessary, in order to ensure that you stay fiscally responsible and sustainable. Just a small point on that.

Mr Speaker, much has been said in this debate about our budget and reserves policies, but let us be clear on what they are, so that we are not speaking at cross-purposes.

Our budget policies are founded on the following principles: we aim to live within our means, and commit to running a balanced budget over each term of Government; we are prudent in our spending while doing our best to ensure that we meet the needs of our people; we generate revenues to cover recurrent expenditures so as to avoid burdening Singaporeans with debt; and we have a fair and progressive system of taxes and transfers.

Our reserves are a key strategic asset for Singapore and Singaporeans of all generations. Our reserves policies are also founded on a set of core principles: our reserves help current and future generations of Singaporeans; we save our reserves, invest them and use the investment returns sustainably; if needed, we will tap on our reserves to help Singapore and Singaporeans get through exceptional crises.

The investment returns from our reserves provide a steady stream of income to supplement the Government’s budget and give us greater fiscal means than we would otherwise have.

The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC), accounts for about 20 cents out of every one dollar, or one-fifth, of Government revenues. Present-day Singaporeans benefit directly from the reserves every year via the NIRC. And also, during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, we do not spend all of our investment returns. We save half of them to cater to future needs – for both the current and future generations. Our fiscal and reserves approaches are thus underpinned by the principles of fairness, prudence and sustainability.

While Singapore will always be a work in progress, and we are always striving to do better, the Government’s fiscal and reserves policies have served Singaporeans well.

Far from what the PSP suggests, our fiscal and reserves policies have enabled us not just to help Singaporeans across generations to improve their lives, but also to achieve remarkable things together and to chart our future with confidence.

To appreciate the full extent of how our policies have helped us, one must consider our context – a country with no natural resources, a population size a mere fraction of others, competing with economies far larger, more developed, and much more endowed than ourselves.

Despite the odds, we have been able to help Singaporeans cope with challenges and seize opportunities.

Consider the following: COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis of a generation. But because of our fiscal and reserves policies, we were able to deploy about $80 billion to fight the pandemic, half of which were drawn from the Past Reserves. This allowed us to save lives, save jobs and emerge from the pandemic stronger. We did that for this current generation. We were able to provide critical support to households, such as through the Care and Support Package and the COVID-19 Support Grant. We could gain timely access to vaccines to keep our population protected and safe; and save Singaporean workers' jobs and keep businesses afloat, such as through the Jobs Support Scheme.

Unlike many other countries, we did not have to borrow to fund our crisis spending. Some of those countries will take decades to repay their pandemic debt.

We kept our economy going through the pandemic and we are enhancing our attractiveness as a global business hub, even as we weather global economic and geopolitical headwinds.

We are also mindful that people are experiencing inflation, cost-of-living issues and cost pressures. To help households cope with the cost of living, inflation and the GST increase, the Government enhanced the Assurance Package from $6 billion to over $10 billion; and continues to provide additional support, such as through the enhanced GST Voucher – Cash, CDC vouchers, and U-Save and S&CC rebates.

Our policies in education have enabled us to provide our children with a good education and a strong foundation for the future. Currently, by the time a Singaporean child turns 16, he or she would have received around $200,000 in education and pre-school subsidies. Our students have consistently performed well in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), emerging as top performers in reading, mathematics, and science in the latest 2022 cycle.

Jobs: we have created good jobs for Singaporeans and kept unemployment low. We have helped workers to continuously upskill and reskill, by providing SkillsFuture credits and course fee subsidies. We have supported those who have lost jobs to find new ones. Because of our efforts, household real incomes per member for the lower- and middle-income have grown by more than 3% per annum over the past decade.

Lower-wage workers: we have been uplifting our lower-wage workers through the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), covering over 90% of lower-wage workers and Workfare, which supplements wages by up to 25%.

Human capital: we emerged top among 157 countries in the 2020 World Bank Human Capital Index. This reflects our investments in our people to ensure that they are healthy and well-educated, and to keep our economy competitive.

Housing: our home ownership rate is around 90%, one of the highest in the world. We keep public housing affordable and accessible through generous housing subsidies and grants. Most homebuyers use less than 25% of their monthly household income to service their Housing and Development Board (HDB) loan, and more than eight in 10 first-timer new and resale flat buyers have been able to finance their monthly HDB loan instalments using their Central Provident Fund (CPF), with little to no cash outlay.

Healthcare: because of our fiscal policies, Singaporeans are assured of receiving good and affordable healthcare. All Singaporeans receive means-tested subsidies at public healthcare institutions, covering up to 80% of treatment costs. They are also covered by MediShield Life, for large hospitalisation bills and costly outpatient treatments. The Government also provides subsidies to keep MediShield Life premiums affordable. For those who face financial difficulties, MediFund provides yet another safety net. Singapore has one of the highest healthy life expectancies in the world. We have been featured on Netflix as one of six healthy "Blue Zones", regions with a high concentration of healthy centenarians.

Retirement adequacy: as Singaporeans live longer, we ensure our retirement support system provides them with peace of mind in their golden years. For those who had low incomes in their working years, we supplement their retirement income through the Silver Support Scheme. The Majulah Package will provide a further boost for our seniors and young seniors.

Income inequality: our fiscal policies have allowed us to put in place a system of support to provide more for those who have less. Our Gini co-efficient has improved. Our income inequality has come down over the past 15 years, especially after we take into account Government transfers and taxes.

Then, the middle-income. We remain focused on the well-being of the broad middle of society, who receive more in benefits than the taxes they pay. For every dollar of tax a middle-income Singaporean household pays, they receive around $2 in benefits, higher than in other countries like the UK and Finland. The lower income in Singapore receives more, at $4 in benefits for every dollar they pay. Even the upper middle-income group – those in the 61st to 80th percentile – receives about the same or slightly more in benefits compared to what they pay in taxes. They may not get as much in direct cash benefits compared to lower-income groups, but they too enjoy access to the affordable housing, healthcare and world-class education that I have mentioned earlier.

We try to deliver as much value as possible for every taxpayer dollar. Singapore's Government expenditure remains among the lowest across advanced economies, at 18% of GDP compared to the OECD average of over 40%. But even as we keep public expenditures lean, Singapore produces social and economic outcomes that have been better than most. So, being the lowest in terms of spending does not mean that we are not doing good things with it. We are actually getting value for money, for Singaporeans.

Our progressive tax policies have also enabled us to keep the tax burden low. Forty percent of workers do not pay Personal Income Tax. The effective tax burden for middle-income households is around 10% of household income. This is significantly lower than in advanced economies like the US, the UK and Finland, where it can exceed 20% or even 30%.

Our fiscal policies ensure that we can continuously upgrade our infrastructure, such as our new MRT lines. We set aside funds whenever we can afford to and we borrow through the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA). This way, we spread the costs of such projects fairly and sustainably across current and future Singaporeans, all of whom will benefit from these projects.

Climate change: our fiscal policies put us on a good footing to tackle climate change, an especially existential threat for Singapore. Our carbon tax revenues will be used to support decarbonisation efforts and our transition to a green economy, and cushion the impact on businesses and households. We have also set up the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund to set aside monies when fiscal conditions permit.

We have achieved so much with so little, in large part because of our fiscal policies. We are able to meet our needs yet live within our means; we are able to plan ahead and meet the future with confidence; and we have the assurance that we have the wherewithal to navigate an uncertain world.

This is why I support the amended Motion. It is in our Budget and reserves policies, anchored on key principles of fairness, prudence and sustainability, that will enable us to secure our prospects and build a better future together.

Let me move on to the points that the Opposition Members have made. I think, I mentioned earlier that PSP's position is that the Government has excess fiscal resources not being spent on Singaporeans. They say that over and above this, we would have even more fiscal resources available, if only we changed our reserves policies, especially by spending more from investment returns or land sales; and that aspect is also WP’s position. Both call on the Government to reveal the full size of the reserves, ostensibly to facilitate greater accountability and debate.

Let us address these in turn.

PSP's belief that we have plenty of excess fiscal space is misconceived. This was addressed by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in his round-up speech in Budget 2023, but let me summarise briefly.

COVID-19 expenditure: the amount of COVID-19 expenditures funded from current revenues instead of Past Reserves does not reflect excess resources. I am making this point because that was something raised in the Budget 2023 debate by Mr Leong Mun Wai. The COVID-19 expenditure does not reflect excess resources. It reflects diverted resources. Projects that were planned and budgeted for had to be deferred during COVID-19 and the resources that would otherwise have been used for them were reallocated to the urgent task of fighting COVID-19. Now that we are out of the pandemic, these projects are back on track and we will need to spend on them.

Funds: Mr Leong Mun Wai talked about funds just now, and his assumption is that we are parking away these monies and somehow there is all these excess money that is not being used. More importantly, his suggestion is that they are not being used on today's present-day Singaporeans or the present-day generation. That is not so.

Contrary to PSP's assertion, the monies that we put in funds are not just for the far unknown future, but are resources set aside to meet specific funding commitments that are already benefiting Singaporeans today. For example, over $2 billion is disbursed annually from the GST Voucher Fund for the GSTV Scheme, which is a permanent scheme to help lower- and middle-income Singaporean households defray their GST expenses. This goes to Singaporeans of today, not just unborn Singaporeans of the future.

Other examples, include the funds for the Pioneer Generation and the Merdeka Generation Packages, both of which are drawn down regularly today for Singaporeans of today to support them. We also have funds set up to meet longer-term commitments, especially where the expenditure is large and lumpy. For example, the Changi Airport Development Fund funds the development of Terminal 5 and other aviation facilities. These commitments benefit all Singaporeans by securing our economic competitiveness and creating jobs for current and future generations.

By setting these monies aside when we are able to do so, we smoothen out lumpy spending and give Singaporeans assurance that support will be available in the future, and they will not have to scramble to find the money only when it is needed. This is prudent, thoughtful and responsible fiscal policy – not evidence of excess fiscal resources.

Then Mr Leong suggests that we have excess resources from the NIRC but that, too, is not the case. Revenues, including NIRC, are pooled together to fund our annual spending needs. I have just explained the Government's approach to setting aside resources in funds, which are being drawn down today and not just in the future. So, there is no excess NIRC, as PSP alleges.

Mr Leong suggests that we are somehow over-accumulating funds or spending more than necessary. But it is important to look at our fiscal projections as a percentage of GDP and not in nominal terms, as Mr Leong has done when comparing our current and pre-COVID-19 expenditure.

Government expenditure was 18% of GDP in 2019 and as Deputy Prime Minister Wong has explained previously, we expect it to reach potentially over 20% by 2030. It does not reflect imprudent spending, but rather medium-term trends, including the need to spend more on healthcare due to our ageing population.

From time to time, we may have revenue upsides but that should not be taken as evidence of excess funds. The right way to assess our fiscal position is not based on year-to-year changes, but based on the broader medium-term trends. As set out in the MOF Occasional Paper on Medium-Term Fiscal Projections published last year, Government expenditure is now at 18% of GDP and we expect it to reach over 20% by 2030, as I mentioned just now.

On the revenue side, without the GST increase and other revenue measures, we would not be able to fund this projected increase in expenditure. The GST increase and other moves will help close the gap – assuming we maintain spending at 20% of GDP, which may not be an easy task given the increasing calls on the Government to do more.

The reality is that we are in a tight fiscal position over the medium term. Hence, our budget policies must continue to be prudent and sustainable. We will continue to monitor our revenue and expenditure trends closely and adjust our fiscal strategies to meet our collective aspirations in a way that is fair to both current and future generations of Singaporeans.

Let me now turn to the contention that we have even more resources if we changed our reserves policy. Essentially, the Opposition's arguments boil down to two things. First, that land sales proceeds should be treated as revenue, that is common to both PSP and WP; and second, that we should waive the land cost for HDB flats as per PSP's "so-called" Affordable Housing Scheme.

Let me deal with the first point first, on treating land sales proceeds as revenue. On this, I recall the Leader of the Opposition referred several times to land sales increasing the size of our reserves. He said: "Even if 100% of the NIRC could be spent, which the WP has not called for, the reserves would continue to grow steadily since the proceeds from the sale of land, which hit billions of dollars a year, added to the reserves". And he said: "Our principal reserves which continue to grow with the proceeds from land sales".

The Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. Land sales does not constitute revenue. We have debated the issue of treating land sales proceeds as revenue many times in this House. Suffice to say, selling land does not generate new wealth. When we sell land, we are merely converting the land from a physical asset to a financial asset.

Earlier, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim acknowledged that land – a physical asset – forms part of the reserves. What happens when you sell a piece of land?

When you sell the land for $100 million, you get back $100 million. Are you richer? You are not, because the land that was worth $100 million has left your hands. But what you have got is, you have got $100 million. Your reserves are neutral; your position is still $100 million. It is not new money; it is not new revenue; it is not new wealth. I had explained this in quite some detail, in a very long answer to a Parliamentary Question back in November 2022. We can check the Hansard. I encourage Members to read that answer to the Parliamentary Question, which explains it in some detail.

This is the fundamental problem with many of the suggestions that have been put forward by the Opposition, because the assumption there is that when you sell a piece of land, you are somehow getting wealthier. You are not getting wealthier. You are just getting cash in exchange for land.

So, what happens to the cash? The proceeds accrue to the reserves to preserve its value. The Government invests the proceeds with the rest of the reserves. That is what happens. Then of course, it comes back every year into the budget, the income on those reserves that are invested, come back into the budget via the NIRC.

There are pitfalls if we use land sale proceeds for direct expenditure. First, land sales are affected by property cycles, which are volatile and difficult to predict. This would mean Government revenues would fluctuate with the market, creating uncertainty and making it more difficult for the Government to plan for the long term.

Second, when the Government relies on land sales to fund spending, it could develop a vested interest in keeping land prices high to maximise revenues. This will ultimately hurt the economy and harm Singaporeans.

By accruing the land sales proceeds to the reserves, investing them and using 50% of the investment returns through the NIRC, we are in fact spending from our land sales proceeds, but indirectly rather than directly. This provides a stable and sustainable stream of revenue and avoids the pitfalls of direct expenditure of the land sales proceeds.

It appears that PSP acknowledges these pitfalls. Because to get around them, PSP has suggested a variation – that we spend land sales proceeds by treating them as revenue divided over the period of the lease. In other words, when we sell a 99-year parcel of land, we can spend about 1% of the proceeds each year.

Actually, if you think about it, this proposal is not so different from the Government’s current approach. Both are anchored on the idea that you do not use up all the proceeds at once. Because for the Government, we say, you take $100 million, you put it in reserves, you invest it. The PSP's solution is you keep 1%, you invest the 99%. You have that 1% there.

But the difference is this. Under the Government’s approach, instead of spending that dollar of land sales proceeds directly, we invest it and spend half of the investment returns generated. In the long run, that dollar will grow with time, and we will be able to spend more than just that dollar of land sales proceeds we originally received.

Under the PSP’s proposal, we may see a small increase in revenues in the near term. But because we are ploughing back less into the reserves, we would also have a reduction of the reserves. Put very simply, under PSP's proposal, you have $1. Under PAP's approach, the $1 goes back and you earn more on it. So, you get more than $1. That is the difference.

If you took PSP's approach, there would be, over time, less to invest. Less reserves means less to invest; and over time, less returns and a lower NIRC. In the long run, PSP’s proposal would result in a reduction in revenue compared with the current approach.

Here, I just want to stop to explain something, because we hear Mr Leong Mun Wai say this over and over again, and I think it is time we examine the statement. Mr Leong, you are ready? Okay.

Mr Leong says all the time, we are saving, we are accumulating, this is our money, you are not giving it back to Singaporeans and the time has come when you are over-accumulating and saving too much. What is missing from that assertion is the recognition that when we take it and put it in the reserves and it is invested by GIC, 50% of the projected income comes back every year into the annual budget.

When it comes back into the annual budget, it forms about 20% of our annual budget. Together with all the other revenue, it enables us to do all the things I talked about earlier: healthcare, education, transport, subsidies, CDC vouchers, all of that.

So, the impression that has been consistently put forward is as though the Government is taking the money and squirreling it away and not sharing it with Singaporeans. That is not correct.

The Government is taking it, investing it, and making sure that Singaporeans get it back every year through the NIRC with earnings on the income. I just want everybody in this Chamber to remember that and for this to be stuck in your head. You really, really need to remember this. When we say that we are investing in the reserves, we are not keeping the money away from Singaporeans. We are growing it and using it for Singaporeans.

Let me move on now to the next proposal from PSP, which is providing land free, under their Affordable Housing Scheme.

We have debated the issue of public housing land cost exhaustively in this House last year and it is unnecessary for me to go into this at length.

The crux is that state land forms part of our Past Reserves. These reserves are held for the benefit of all Singaporeans. It is not part of the assets that the Government can use as it wishes. When HDB requires land to develop flats, the land has to be taken out of the Past Reserves. HDB has to purchase the land by paying fair market value for the land, and the money goes into the Past Reserves.

If we give it away for less or for free, as PSP proposes, our reserves will shrink each time land is used for public housing and we will be short-changing Singaporeans.

We have explained numerous times that HDB does not price new flats to recover the cost of land and construction. Instead, they are priced below market value using significant market discounts to ensure that they are affordable to Singaporeans across different income percentiles. We can see this from resale transactions, where many flat-owners sell their flats on the open market at prices higher than those of comparable Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

HDB also provides housing grants to help specific groups of buyers with their first flat purchase. With market discounts and housing grants, most first-timer households use less than a quarter of their monthly income to service their HDB loans. This means that they can service their monthly mortgage payments with CPF and little to no cash outlay.

As such, there is no need for the Government to give land to HDB for free to ensure housing affordability.

Another view by some Members, like Ms Hazel Poa, is that increasing land cost is driving up HDB prices, which requires more market discounts and grants to keep flats affordable; which places unnecessary burden on tax payers.

As explained at length by Minister Desmond Lee last year, the spike in resale prices was a phenomenon triggered by COVID-19 disruptions. The best way to tackle this is to ensure sufficient housing supply. In this regard, Government has been ramping up BTO supply, including having more projects with shorter waiting times.

Meanwhile, because it will take time for the supply to come on stream, the Government has made moves to prioritise BTO supply for those with more urgent housing needs. This includes giving greater priority to families with children and young married couples, who are buying their first home. The additional ballot will significantly increase their chances of securing a BTO flat, especially one in a non-mature estate.

In addition, together with the roll out of the new HDB flat classification framework from the second half of this year, housing prices will better reflect the locational attributes of BTO projects. Potential homebuyers can look forward to more affordable BTO flats.

Before I leave the subject of land, I just want to come back to another point that Mr Leong alludes to quite frequently. He keeps saying that the reserves represent land that was acquired with the blood, sweat and tears of Singaporeans. Just two points on this.

There was land that we have in our reserves which is not acquired land. There is land which is state land, before any land had to be acquired. That is one point. Acquired land is not the only land that is in our reserves. So, that is number one.

But the more important point is this. In the early years, when we had to acquire land, the country, and therefore the Government, did not have very much money. Under the regime of the Land Acquisition Act at that time, the formula at which we acquired land was necessarily not quite the same as pure commercial market value. But that land which was acquired through the sacrifice of Singaporeans was taken, developed for national purposes and used for the benefit of Singaporeans – whether it was through JTC industrial land, or other public places, and for HDB flats. That land, when it was taken, at a time when the Government was not having the same revenue streams as today, was taken for public purposes, given back, and ultimately used for the benefit of the public.

Which is why the proposal to treat land in our reserves as if it has no value, to treat it as zero dollars, does not honour the sacrifice of that group who gave up their land under the Land Acquisition Act. Because their land, which did go into the reserves, means something. It means something to them. It means something to us when we built on it and you should not treat it as though it was worth nothing. It has a value, we should recognise it and we should reflect it.

Next, let me move on to the transparency on the size of the reserves. Both PSP and WP have called on us to disclose the full size of our reserves.

We have disclosed many aspects of our reserves management policies on our Government websites, in Parliament, and via media platforms. The size of the assets managed by MAS and Temasek are also publicly available every year; only those managed by GIC are not. We have explained many times in this House why we do not disclose the full size of our reserves.

Our reserves are our strategic asset against crises and emergency scenarios. Such scenarios could threaten our economy and livelihoods, or even our existence as a nation. Just as our defence forces do not reveal the full extent of our weaponry and military capabilities, it is not in Singapore's national interest to disclose the full size of our reserves.

I notice that, today, the argument has moved on a little bit and it is said that you need to disclose the full size of the reserves and have full transparency so that we can have a conversation and a debate. The thing is, just because something is fully transparent does not mean that all the relevant things will necessarily be highlighted.

Earlier on today, the Leader of the Opposition referred to an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey. If I could have that distributed? I believe a copy had been given.

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A copy of the handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Ms Indranee Rajah: Yes, Sir. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech said, "The IPS working paper referred to earlier in my speech revealed relatively low levels of trust in journalists and the media on the topic of reserves policy. For this House's information, Opposition politicians scored higher in this regard." Nothing wrong with that statement, perfectly correct.

But the Leader of the Opposition did not highlight the other statement which was just on top of the statement that he referred to which is that, "The highest trust level was accorded to the PAP Government." There is a chart which shows the PAP Government at about seven. Then, it was scholars, then families and friends, then fellow citizens, then followed by Members of the Opposition.

The IPS survey is fully transparent. But just because it is fully transparent does not mean that everything will necessarily be highlighted or a conversation taken on a particular trajectory.

I have no quarrel with the Leader of the Opposition for highlighting his particular statement but I just want to say that full transparency does not actually always mean the full picture, depending on what is done with the information.

Next, I move on to PSP's contention that because our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is declining, we will need less resources in the future.

Do not forget that while we may have fewer babies born, we have a population that is living longer and, yet will have fewer children to support them. A smaller workforce will have to support a larger, ageing population. We will need the additional resources to provide Singaporeans with greater healthcare and ageing support in their silver years.

On CPF, Ms Hazel Poa suggested that the Government is paying out less interest than it should for CPF. Mr Louis Chua has also suggested to directly pass through GIC's returns to CPF members.

In 2014, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam explained in Parliament at great length how we set our CPF interest rates and manage CPF proceeds. Our CPF rates are fair. They are pegged to returns on investments of comparable risks and duration in the market. The rates are risk-free for members.

Regardless of the interest rate environment or the returns that the Government actually earns in a particular year, we continue to pay the CPF rates that we have committed.

Over the past 20 years of low interest rates, the Government has continued to provide members with 2.5% minimum interest on OA monies, and since 2008, a 4% minimum interest on Special, MediSave and Retirement Account (SMRA) monies, extra 1% interest on the first $60,000 of combined CPF balances for all members and an additional 1% interest on the first $30,000 of combined CPF balances for members aged 55 and above.

While the Government expects to earn returns over the long term that will be able to cover CPF interest rates, there is no assurance that GIC's returns will exceed CPF interest rates in the shorter term, let alone every year. There have been years where GIC's returns fall below CPF interest rates but we do not cut CPF interest rates.

The Government is able to maintain CPF interest rates regardless of the interest rate environment or the financial performance of our investment entities only because we have a buffer of net assets. In effect, where GIC has earned returns higher than that of CPF interest rates, it is used to cover for the many years of low interest rates and when GIC earns returns below CPF rates. This ensures that Singaporeans do not experience fluctuating CPF rates and will continue to receive stable rates to grow CPF balances for retirement adequacy.

On the question of the rate of growth of the reserves, Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested that the Government is growing our reserves faster than necessary. If we were truly over-accumulating our reserves, the NIRC would be growing at a much faster rate than GDP. But do remember that our economy is growing and our population has higher needs. In fact, NIRC has kept pace with our economy. Over the past five years, NIRC has remained stable at about 3.5% of GDP and we expect this trend to continue.

As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has explained previously, at the current pace of accumulation, reserves' growth will not greatly outpace economic growth. So, in truth, we are not at all over-accumulating our reserves. If we slow down the pace of saving, the value of our reserves will diminish over time. The fact of the matter is that our spending needs are growing and these need to be funded. We do not have a lot of fiscal space, contrary to what PSP suggests.

The WP has acknowledged that there is a medium-term funding gap and that taxes need to be raised. They opposed all the previous GST increases, but recently changed their position and said they accept the GST at 7%.

We are able to enjoy today's sound and stable fiscal position because the Government introduced the GST in 1994 and revised the rate prudently in good time. This GST increase is needed, too, in light of the spending trends I have shared. We have to spend more in several key areas and we will need the revenues very soon.

The WP has suggested a slew of tax measures in lieu of the latest GST increase, including to introduce a tax on net wealth above $10 million and further raise property taxes. Effectively, they seek to impose more taxes on the wealthy, rather than raise the GST as a broad-based consumption tax. Their ostensible objection to the GST increase was that it would negatively impact the lower-income groups.

The fact is that the higher-income groups are already paying more in taxes, and that is how we have designed our overall fiscal system – to be fair and progressive. Remember, the GST increase was done together with enhancements to the permanent GST vouchers. This ensures that the well-to-do pay more GST and the lower-income are impacted the least. In other words, the wealthy, who consume more, will also contribute their fair share of taxes.

The Opposition's other suggestion is to spend more from the reserves – for example, tweak the NIRC formula or fund land purchases from the reserves rather than the current Budget. But is this really the best course of action for Singapore? Given significant uncertainties in the current geopolitical situation, this would not be wise.

As such, we must use our reserves wisely. Today, we preserve our principal and strike a balance between our current and future needs by spending 50% of the investment returns, while putting the remaining 50% back into the reserves to grow it for the future. We believe this to be fair to current and future generations of Singaporeans. We should not be too quick to change this.

I think WP alluded to the fact that they are not saying to touch the principal. That is fair enough. And they had suggested 60:40. Deputy Prime Minister Wong has addressed this before. He had said "never say never", but not for now. Not for now because we need to make sure that we have enough ballast to keep us going.

We have faced four major crises between 1997 and 2020 – the Asian Financial Crisis, the SARS outbreak, Global Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. In a more uncertain and volatile world, we cannot expect less.

In a crisis, we can draw on our reserves, but having such solid reserves in itself also means that we have a rock on which to anchor ourselves in turbulent times. Our reserves give us confidence and give others confidence in us. In times of crisis, we become the harbour in the storm for many investors.

We must and will continue to do right by Singaporeans, for Singaporeans. Doing right by Singaporeans is not just about meeting the needs of Singaporeans today; it is about looking after our children, grandchildren and generations of tomorrow.

That is the approach our pioneers took with regard to the reserves, the result of which is that we all benefit today. As stewards of our reserves, we have the obligation to manage it judiciously, make refinements where needed, so that it will continue to serve its purpose for Singaporeans today and in years to come. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the House for her reply speech on Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion. I will make two points in response to what the Leader of the House has raised in terms of my interventions in this Motion.

The first pertains to the two pages of the IPS working paper which was shared with all Members. I am glad she has no quarrel with my characterisation of what I referred to in my speech. The Leader of the House said that full disclosure of information does not mean the correct stuff will be highlighted because I did not say what, in her mind was important, which was that the PAP Government ranked the highest vis-a-vis the mean rating of trust for every group. But the irony here is that full transparency and identifying the source of the information and the report itself have allowed the Leader of the House to ensure that what she deems is the correct stuff will be highlighted. So, that is my response to an argument about transparency.

The other point I would like to follow up with the Leader of the House is that she also did not make a copy of the point which I had raised specifically in the report about a Select Committee, which was what the report recommended. So, I suppose the argument can work both ways.

I refer to page 64 of the report which states quite clearly "another alternative is for the Parliament of Singapore to set up an ongoing committee that convenes an annual review" and it goes on, and this is under the header "There is potential for future public engagements". With regard to the proposal for a Select Committee and better engagement, it says, "This process needs to be carefully calibrated so that knowledgeable and activist segments of the population do not feel that it is an attempt to breed the siege mentality or reinforce what has been termed as the veil of vulnerability. It will be unfortunate if this is mired in a debate about whether such a mechanism structure or programme is an attempt to shore up the power of the political incumbents and scare the public into supporting the latest status quo of policy orthodoxies".

It is for this reason that I will segue into my second point, which was what the Leader of the House had shared vis-a-vis what I said about land use. I understand what the Leader of the House is saying about land just being converted from cash into a physical — that essentially, there is no real difference between the cash you receive from a land sale and the fact that the land was actually part of the reserves before.

But the point I am making is actually the fact that the land can be conceivably be resold. The same piece of land can be resold. For example, in the case of the 30-year industrial property, Company A buys it for $1 billion. After 30 years, it has to return it to the state.

And the state, depending on what the prevailing land use rules are, can resell that piece of land. And this is the point that I sought to put into my speech, which brings the ultimate conclusion, that para – and I will repeat it – it is the knowledge of this intuitive fact that the same piece of land can be resold and the state receives land sale receipts, why there is significant interest in conversations about a more equitable use of the NIRC for current and future generations of Singaporeans.

I hope Leader can address that point, that the fact that the land can be resold.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. On the point of the 99-year lease, the simple answer is that you would have lost the use of the land for the 99 years or the 30 years. You can set the limit where you want to. If it is below 10 years, we do not do that. Anything above that, because you have lost the use of that land. I had actually explained that in actually quite great detail in that Parliamentary answer that I mentioned and I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to read that.

Then, on the second point, the reference to the IPS study, the main point I really wanted to highlight was that if you want to have a full conversation, you should be fair and objective and set up all the material facts. So, just because it is out there does not mean that that is guaranteed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Leader, I understand the point that you have lost the use of the land that you sold to Company A for 30 years. I understand that point. But then, when it returns to the state, you sell that same piece of land again. And that is the point that I was trying to suggest that the public intuitively see. Hence, they also feel that your reserves grow because you have this opportunity to sell the land every 30 years, the same piece of land. That was the essential point I was making.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I understand the point, which in Minister Tan See Leng's words, is more of a comment than a clarification, but it does not really detract from what I said, which is that you lose the use of the land for the 99 years, when you could have used it for other purposes. And here what you are really doing is, when the land has a value, you put it in, you invest it, that is surely unobjectionable.

At the end of the day, if you think about it, there is not much difference in our positions as I explained, because we do use the land sale proceeds. The difference is, what the PSP and WP, in different forms are asking us to do is use it now, use it directly. What we do is we take it, we invest it and we use it, but we use it in a sustainable manner by streaming it out through the NIRC.

So, we are not so far apart. And philosophically we have a different approach, but you can have a debate, and we are having a debate on which is the better approach, but we think ours is better because it is a fair, sustainable and prudent approach.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to prolong this. Let us just say there is a difference. I want to put that on record, that there is a difference between what the Leader has characterised in her latest reply and what I was referring to.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poa. Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I would like to revisit the point about the 99-year lease and the loss of the use of land. Does the Minister agree that in cases where we rent out a property, we also lose the use of that property, but rental is considered as income. Is it not similar to what we are doing here, just that this is rental for over a longer period of time?

Ms Indranee Rajah: For 99 years, you transfer the title, the leasehold title. Rental, you do not. There is a difference. And again, rental periods are usually shorter, so it is a question of how you manage your asset.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. The Minister did not address my additional suggestion regarding the transparency of reserves that if the Government does not want to reveal the full size of the reserves to the public because it is concerned that currency speculators will attack the Singapore dollar, can the size of the reserves be shared confidentially with Members of Parliament or just a cross party Select Committee, so that they can have a more robust debate and discussion about our country's long-term budget and expenditure plans?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his question. I think the answer really is this. We all know that when information is shared, one is a secret, two is not. That is the general principle. It is very difficult to control information flows when they go out beyond a certain number of people.

When it comes to sensitive information, especially with regard to reserves, it is not that there is no information. Please understand that. It is not that there is no information. Because there is information on MAS, there is information on Temasek. GIC and Temasek put out information on their assets and returns every year.

But this is a strategic asset and, hence, one should not put out all the information.

I think rather than going into all the details, I would just simply put it this way because it is a matter of principle. If Singaporeans needed somebody to defend them, on the one side you have the PAP and the other side you have Opposition. The PAP keeps some powder dry to make sure that we will always be able to defend Singaporeans in crises. The Opposition approach is, "I have to defend you, but by the way, let me just tell everybody everything, all my secrets, all my assets. And I will defend you." And I think the judgment for Singaporeans to make is who do you think would be able to defend you strategically in such a situation?

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I want to take on the Minister's last point. Does she not think that it is more accurate to say that what the Opposition has proposed is that the Government should not take everything from us, until we are very weakened now. We cannot even defend ourselves. That is one point. Okay, maybe the Minister can respond to that first.

Nothing to respond? Okay. Okay, because I have some other things to to ask.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, could I suggest, maybe you have other clarifications? Why not you put them out at one go?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Another question I would like to ask the Minister is that, the Minister said just now, state land is not the sacrifices of the Singaporean. You say that this is under the Government so it is not really — I think that is the impression I got, if I am not wrong.

And the land that you have acquired from Singaporeans, you say all has been used. So, as a result, all these have been used for public purposes and all that. Can you confirm that all the land acquired by the Government in the process of all these Land Acquisition Act acquisitions since the 1970s till now, all the land has been promptly used for public purposes, within a certain number of years after acquisition? Or are there any land that until today actually has not been fully developed, but you have acquired the land from the Singaporeans already?

Ms Indranee Rajah: On the first question, he said Government should not take everything from us. Is Mr Leong familiar with Robert Browning? He is a poet and there is a famous line, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." And there are many ways. By having MediFund, by having ComCare, by having Silver Generation Package, Pioneer Generation Package, Silver Support Scheme, CDC Vouchers, Assurance Package, subsidised healthcare, subsidised housing. There are many ways in which we give and care for Singaporeans.

So, it is not a matter of taking things away from Singaporeans. It is a question of stewardship, that whatever we have or whatever we have had to acquire, we act as stewards and we find a way to return that.

On the question of land acquisition, well, I do not have details with me, but I can say that much of the land would have been used for public purposes. Some of it may have to go into our land reserves, but for strategic reasons. You may not want to use the land immediately, but you would have long-term plans for it or you may need to keep that land as a buffer zone. So, the short answer is, when the Government acquires land, it does so for a public purpose or a national purpose. The Government will use it as required, but it is for the national interest.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, can I ask the Minister? How about an example like that? There are residents who came to see me and said that their grandfather's land was acquired in the early 1980s. They were paid $60,000, the piece of land, of course, over the years was enhanced by the Government. So, now, you have got roads going through the land, and the land, to be fair, has increased in value. But the grandfather was paid $60,000 in the early 1980s and only today the land was auctioned.

Do you consider that as a sacrifice by the Singaporeans? This family who has given up the land or was it forcefully being taken from them.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification, because it also reminds me there was one other point that I did not make earlier, which was that since 2007, we have acquired the land at market value. So, the law changed and that was because Singapore's circumstances had improved.

But coming back to his point, the answer simply is this: the Government has to decide when to use the land, what to do with the land. At that time when the land was acquired, it is acquired based on the Land Acquisition Act at that time, and when it is required to be deployed, it will be deployed. So, it does not in any way diminish the fact that the person may have lost their land, but it was acquired legally and under the Land Acquisition Act for national purposes, and in the fullness of time, dealt with as required.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I just want to confirm that all these land acquisitions by the Government which the Singaporeans have given up, represent a sacrifice on the part of the Singaporeans. If the Minister and the Government got no problem with that, I will let the matter rest. I am raising the question because I thought I heard the Minister saying, "Some of this land belong to the Government anyway", something like that.

Ms Indranee Rajah: When this point was raised earlier, I think Mr Leong misquoted me. He said I claimed that state land is not a sacrifice or something like that. That was not what I said. I said that there are some lands which are state lands which were not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and that is all that I said.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. I do understand the features that of our CPF system in terms of the OA and SA. But I think the question that I have still remains in that, especially when we look at the investment time horizon, both in terms of GIC's long-term horizon as well as CPF member's retirement adequacy needs, in that sense, especially if we look at both the original and amended Motions, both are looking at current and future generation's savings and needs and so on.

So, already we are allowing CPF members to invest their CPF investment accounts, but what is actually stopping us from allowing members to be able to access the fund management expertise of the GIC to allow them to earn higher rates of return over the longer term in a selective manner. This is where the latest statistics that I saw suggest that only about 23% of CPF members have an investment account, but only 11% of CPF members have active accounts.

So, such a measure can help those who are particularly financially vulnerable and in need of such services.

Ms Indranee Rajah: The short answer is that you cannot always guarantee that they will have high returns or that the rates will be positive. It might be negative sometimes as well. So, the system that I described earlier is actually the better system. You put your money in the CPF and the CPF returns yield certain rates; and you are assured of those rates because of the system that we have set up.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: Earlier, the Minister cautioned about relying on land sale proceeds as revenue. She gave two reasons: one is that it provides incentive to keep land price high; and secondly, it is volatile.

I would like to ask the Minister whether she agrees that incentive to keep prices high actually also exist under the current system where land sale proceeds go to beef up the reserves, which is the source of NIRC as well as our rainy day fund. And secondly, does she not agree that we also have Government revenue sources that are volatile like, for example, stamp duty?

Ms Indranee Rajah: Essentially, when we sell land, it is done either by way of Government land sales tenders or you sell it in accordance with market value. We remove the temptation to push the price higher because that becomes your only source of revenue or major source of revenue. But before you even get there, you must go back to the fundamental point – which is that it is not revenue. We are just converting the asset from one form to another.

I am sorry, the other, the second question? Oh, stamp duty. That is a very different nature of asset. Different assets have different attributes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair: I just wanted to pick up on a point that the Leader of the Opposition made both to me and to the Leader. He suggested that the IPS report had a reference or recommended a Select Committee. It is 90-page report. I did a quick scan, I could not find this reference. I would be grateful if he can tell us where it is.

Mr Pritam Singh: To the Member, at page 64, "Another alternative is for Parliament to set up an ongoing committee." I read that as a select committee. I am not sure what other ongoing committees there can be.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, you have another clarification?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Mr Speaker. I have another question for the for Minister Indranee on the NIRC. For the NRC, I think, probably, at some point there will be some agreement to disagree.

But I want to clarify a few things with the Minister. First of all, I think as you have said, the budget has about $100 billion of revenue and on top of that there is about $24 billion of NIRC. This becomes a pool of money that is available for spending. There is no question about that. But the Minister will not dispute the fact that out of this $124 billion, in fiscal year 2023, about $17 billion is moved to the endowment funds and the trust fund. So, we may disagree whether this is a spending or not, but that is a fact. Correct? So, this is the first question. So, there is, in fact, a sum of money that is moved to the endowment funds and the trust fund.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, are you seeking a clarification? At the end, you will have the chance to make your closing speech. So, if you have other clarifications, I would appreciate if you maybe just put it all, at one go.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Then, when the funds are being transferred to all these endowment funds and trust funds, some of these funds, like the endowment funds, as I have said in my speech, the capital is locked up in the fund. So, is there a need to lock up this capital? Because by legislation, the capital is going to be locked up. We definitely will be able to put that fund to the better use.

So, if indeed some of these funds are locked up through the endowment and trust fund structure, then all the things that the Minister has said about, "Oh, give us the leeway. Let us take the money from you first. We will invest in the reserves and you will give you back NIRC." So, but here, we are finding the situation not so straightforward. Even the NIRC, some of the money is being locked away. You may say this is not NIRC, but whether it is NIRC or just a surplus budget resources, money is fungible. So, let us not argue about that. But there is access money that is locked away.

And there are some funds that may not actually directly benefit Singaporeans straightaway. Because we would think that the NIRC will be a bit more towards welfare spending, but we also know that the NIRC or the endowment fund and trust funds, a lot of the trust funds are for infrastructure development, like the Changi Airport Fund and for economic development, like the National Productivity Fund, and even the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund.

These are all going to use up a lot of the so-called 20% that the NIRC has contributed to the budget. We have no issue that you keep quiet. But if you insist that every dollar spent in the budget, 20% is from the NIRC, then, I would say yes, there is no factual error or factual inaccuracy to what you say. But then this 20% is not quite the impression that the Government has tried to convey. Meaning this 20% is spent on Singaporeans, not necessarily spent on Singaporeans.

So, on these two points, the capital is locked away and some of the capital is actually not for welfare spending, even for all these very long-term infrastructure spending – which should be dealt with in a different way, like what you have said, there is a SINGA Fund, there are other things that we can use to finance all this.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Leong for his clarification. It is actually a very straightforward principle: 20% of our revenue comes from NIRC. So, that is your full revenue. We allocate this for education, for the Ministries; and some part of that goes into funds. So, the entire revenue is fungible, as Mr Leong said. So, that is all mixed up.

I did not say – and I am not sure why Mr Leong thinks so – that we take just that 20% slice of NIRC and park that in a fund. It does not work like that. It all comes into the big pool of revenue and then we slice up the pie differently. Then, when it goes into the fund, it is spent on Singaporeans. Some of it may be spent now because, like he mentioned a whole lot of infrastructure funds, but he omitted mentioning the other funds which I talked about in my reply earlier – like for example, Pioneer Generation Fund, the Merdeka Generation Fund and the GST Voucher Fund which you draw down. And you draw down now for today's generation and some of it may be later. But the point is, the most important point is, that this is for Singaporeans.

And for the infrastructure ones, because the spending is lumpy, you do not want to wait until one day when you have to pay a very large amount and suddenly, you do not have the money. So, you set the money aside and you are able to stream it out, and you ensure that you have infrastructure available for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Prime Minister.

7.25 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to the Motion as proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Today, we have had a long debate on this, past reserves, how much to use and how much is enough. But let us not forget what a blessing it is to have the privilege of having such a debate, having Past Reserves to argue over. How did we get into such an enviable position?

MPs will know that Singapore did not start with much. In 1959 when the PAP Government first took office, Dr Goh Keng Swee was appointed Minister for Finance and he immediately discovered that the Treasury was bare and he had to implement immediate austerity measures, including pay cuts for civil servants and Ministers.

It was only by the early 1980s, after two decades of nation-building that we had started to accumulate a nest egg of reserves. And at that time, our forefathers considered what to do, because they anticipated that the political pressure to spend these reserves would grow and that if these hard-earned savings were not properly protected, it could be easily and unwisely spent. And once gone, is gone. They felt that they had to do everything they could to guard against this.

So, in 1984, at the National Day Rally, Mr Lee Kuan Yew talked about how the reserves could be frittered away by a profligate government spending money that it had not itself earned within a single term. He proposed a simple principle. If a government wants to spend, it must first raise the money, whether by raising taxes or by making shrewd investments or some other direct open, proper means – but not by drawing down on the Past Reserves that it had inherited.

And to guard against a rogue government raiding the reserves, Mr Lee mooted the idea of a President elected directly by the people who would have the constitutional power and the moral authority to safeguard the reserves and be able to say no if the government wanted to spend it for an unwise purpose. And that was the concept of the second key.

Four years later, 1988, the PAP Government published the White Paper on the Elected President scheme. Prof Jayakumar oversaw the drafting and I helped him with it. We made the Elected President proposal a central issue in the 1988 General Election.

After the election, in January 1991, we amended the Constitution to create the Elected Presidency. And Mr Wee Kim Wee, who was then already the President took on the new custodial powers and became the first President who wielded the second key.

We designed a whole system to protect the reserves, wherever those reserves might have been.

So, the second key applies to the Government, especially the Ministry of Finance (MOF) but also to what we call the Fifth Schedule entities. Fifth Schedule because it is a Fifth Schedule attached at the back of the Constitution. These Fifth Schedule entities are MAS, Temasek, GIC, CPF, JTC, HDB. Why did we do this? Why did we include these six entities?

MAS, because those are official foreign reserves. Temasek, because those are our direct investments, the Government-linked corporations. GIC, it does not have very much money of its own, but it is the manager of the Government's money, of MOF's money.

The CPF, which is Singaporeans' savings; not really the Government's money but if we have a rogue government, this too will be at risk. And then, JTC and HDB – why? Because of land; they own and manage land for industrial, for housing and for other uses. Land has value and, in Singapore, land is often very valuable. Therefore, we must protect our land and not allow our government to do anything with it that is a covert form of giveaway; and we discussed some possibilities today.

That was how we started.

Our first priority was to keep the capital sums in the reserve safe. We had not thought very deeply, about exactly how much of the income to spend. We just took a Standard Accounting view – that the income from the reserves would be the interest and dividends that we earned on our investments. And we called this Net Investment Income (NII). We decided that the government of the day could spend 100% of the NII. But in practice, we did not spend any of the NII because we were still running comfortable budget surpluses.

Later, when Mr Ong Teng Cheong was elected President, he questioned this rule. He asked why do we allow ourselves to spend 100% of NII? He argued correctly; that we should also set aside something for the future. Because as the years pass, as the economy grows, if your reserve amount remains constant; it gets smaller relative to the economy and you ought to allow the reserves also to grow.

So, the question is, how much to provide for the future while also enabling the present generation to benefit from the reserves?

There is no magic rule to this, but we arrived at a split of 50-50. And there is a certain simplicity and fairness to that – a natural division that we settled on, between the President and the Government. It is simple, it is intuitive, everybody can understand it. We split the difference between now and the future – "jit lang, jit pua" (一人一半).

And so, in 2001, Parliament passed a constitutional amendment to protect 50% of NII and add that to the reserves; and the other 50%, the government of the day could spend. So, 50% for the present, 50% for the future.

Over the next decades, as we gain experience operating the safeguards, we progressively refined them. And I have been closely involved in this process; first working with Prof Jayakumar under Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, and then later on, as Prime Minister.

Over time, we realised that NII may not be the best measure of what you should be able to spend. Because when we invest, we do not just look at income from dividends and interest. We also expect to make capital gains, which are often more important than dividend payouts.

For example, if you had bought Facebook shares – I did not, but if you had – at their IPO in 2012 at the price of US$38; yesterday, you would have had that value gone up 12 times, because Meta closed at US$455 yesterday. But you would not have received one cent of dividends. Meta is about to pay their first dividends next month in March.

So, in that circumstance, can we say, returns from the investment is zero? No, it is wrong. So, we decided we should consider not just the interest and dividends, but also include capital gains as well. And, of course, you must take into account capital losses as well. And that means spending on the basis of overall investment returns – capital gains and losses, in earnings, plus income, interests and dividends – instead of just investment income.

We also studied how other institutions which had built up large endowment funds managed them, particularly US Ivy League universities like Yale and Harvard. Harvard has the biggest fund, Yale has quite a big fund, but Yale had a model which was very successful and very respected. We learned how they implemented consistent spending rules, how they smoothened out the draw on funds because from year to year, the fund performance can be volatile.

We must understand this. We can project 4% long-term expected returns. Next year, what will you earn? God only knows. It can be plus 10%, it can be minus 10%. Hopefully, after 20 years, it is something like what you projected but, really, it is volatile from year to year. And you have to find some intelligent way to smoothen it out, so that you can spend steadily and not be whiplashed.

And I met Mr Len Baker, who chaired the Yale investment committee, to understand how Yale did it. He happens to be on the GIC investment advisory panel. So, we studied them, we modelled our rules on these ideas, taking into account our political and constitutional context, which makes it much more complicated for us to implement than, say, a US university.

So, in 2008, we amended the Constitution again to specify that the Government would spend out of Net Investment Returns (NIR), instead of NII. But we kept the 50% rule, so the Government could spend 50% of NIR instead of 50% of NII. And we called this amount which a government can draw from the reserves and add to the annual budget to spend, the NIRC.

And this is how we arrive at today's system of spending half of investment returns and saving the other half – after decades of refining and improving the system, testing it out, making sure that it worked as intended.

It is important to put into context just how valuable an asset our reserves are to Singapore. As you have heard, the NIRC accounts for one-fifth of Government revenue. It is around 3.5% of GDP, more than what we spend on any single Ministry; more than we spend on defence, more than we spend on education, more than we spend on health – 3.5% of GDP every year.

As far as MOF is concerned, they just sit there, it arrives. They do not have to raise taxes, they do not have to collect fees. They just have to make sure that Temasek, GIC and MAS are run properly. And every year, you hope and you should be able to get 3.5% of GDP.

How does that compare with our other revenue sources? Sir, 3.5% of GDP is about equal to corporate income tax revenues. It is 1.4 times personal income tax revenues. It is 1.3 times GST revenues.

Supposing we did not have the NIRC out of the reserves, then what would we do? You have a choice. You can double corporate income tax. You can more than double personal tax. Or you can roughly double GST. So, instead of 9% GST, or maybe 18% or 20% GST. That is what the NIRC has enabled us to do – and that is the burden which the NIRC has taken off Singapore taxpayers.

We are here today because our forefathers had the prudence to build up the reserves and the vision to anticipate the political pressures to spend them and the imagination to design the Two Key scheme to protect the reserves for succeeding generations. That is what stewardship means.

But despite the constitutional protection, the pressure to draw on the reserves will still be there, especially as spending needs grow. And hence, the repeated questions and demands: how much do we have? Do we have too much? Are we saving too much? Can we not save just a little bit less?

If you look up the Hansard, you will know this is far from the first time this subject is being discussed.

No doubt, the Opposition will swear they are being responsible and give many plausible reasons to draw on the reserves. Surely, spending a little bit more, just a little bit more would not break the bank. Surely, it is okay to talk about the income or the returns, and we do not touch the principal. Surely, we can treat land differently from other assets – no need to price it fully, sacrifices of the people.

Once we take that mindset, we are going down a deep hole. How much is enough? To me, that is the wrong question to ask. It is a misconception. I have said it before, but it is true. It is a misconception, that when it comes to our reserves, there is such a number, say, X billion dollars, that is enough. Then, you have more than X billion in the reserves, we have too much. You have less than X billion in the reserves, we have too little.

There is no such number because we can have no idea what the future holds, what crisis we will run into, how much we will need.

When the Global Financial Crisis came in 2008/2009, we tapped on our Past Reserves for the first time. We made a Resilience Package – $20.5 billion, of which $4.9 billion was earmarked to come from Past Reserves. We implemented a Jobs Credit Scheme to help employers pay CPF and to protect the jobs. We had a special risk sharing initiative to encourage banks to lend and the Government would share the risk of the lending. In the end, we actually took $4 billion from the Past Reserves. The economy revived much faster than we expected and the Government returned fully this $4 billion by the end of its term.

In that crisis, we also use Past Reserve to guarantee deposits in commercial banks. We ringfenced $150 billion for this purpose. And we said so; that we would put aside $150 billion from the reserves to back this guarantee. It is not just words. It has got real heft behind it.

Thankfully, no banks failed and we did not have to touch the money. But it was critical that we did that and to deliver a credible guarantee to bolster confidence in our banking system, and probably prevented a run and the deposits would have disappeared from our banking system, gone overseas. The banking system would have crashed, the exchange rate would have crashed. Those people who say, "It did not happen, it cannot happen", I say, "Get real."

So, was $4 billion enough?

The next crisis, COVID-19, when it hit us, that was on a different scale altogether. We sought the President's approval successively to draw up to $69 billion from Past Reserves for medical facilities, testing, vaccines, support schemes and Assurance Packages. We saved lives, we saved livelihoods. In the end, we actually drew down about $40 billion. It is not likely that we are going to be able to put $40 billion back into the reserves anytime soon.

Again, in COVID-19, our reserves were a tremendous advantage. It gave us confidence. It gave others confidence in us. We had the financial muscle to do everything we needed to do without getting heavily into debt, unlike so many other countries. The Ministry of Health could concentrate on their duties, the Ministry of Education could concentrate on their arrangements, the Ministry of National Development and MOM could look after the dormitories. You do what you need to do, the resources will be forthcoming. It is a tremendous luxury.

Without the reserves, would we have dared to pre-order vaccines even before they were tested and proven and produced? Would we have been able to pay up to 75% of salaries in the crisis, in the Job Support Scheme to protect workers and to prevent companies from closing?

So, we spent $40 billion in the end. Is $40 billion enough?

COVID-19 will not be our last pandemic nor our most serious one. And it is far from being the worst thing that can happen to Singapore. If we find ourselves at war like Ukraine, how much is enough? The war is costing Ukraine US$100 million a day. The country relies heavily on US and European support. The US has committed over US$100 billion in humanitarian, financial, military support, and now another US$60 billion is being debated. The administration wants to do it, the money is desperately needed in Ukraine. Not money, but guns, weapons, everything, ammunition. Congress is making it difficult.

Europe has also committed almost US$100 billion so far and just committed an additional €50 billion in grants and loans over four years, with a lot of angst and debate, internal disagreement. Hungary had strong views to the contrary.

Without this external funding support, Ukraine's war is over. How long more can the US and Europe sustain this support for Ukraine?

Looking ahead for 50 years, can anyone promise that Singapore will enjoy another half century of peace and tranquillity? Or guarantee that someone will come to our rescue if we ever find ourselves in a situation like Ukraine's?

So, back to the question, for Singapore, how big a nest egg is enough? Mr Speaker, there is no sensible answer to this question. We can never say for sure how much is enough because we do not know what kind of crisis we will face in the future or how our investments will fare. But that does not mean that we should mindlessly save every dollar we earn without regard for present needs. Instead, our mindset should be to treat Past Reserves as a precious resource that generations of Singaporeans have built up, starting with the Pioneer Generation but continuing with the Merdeka Generation and with the later generations till this day.

And it is a resource. How much does not matter. Whatever the amount, we put it aside as a nest egg, a rainy day fund. We draw on half the investment returns to supplement our Budget every year. The rest, we touch only in times of exceptional need or during crises, with special permission from the President. If during one term of government, we happen to accumulate a surplus, then we add to the reserves and, hopefully, we can maintain the nest egg and keep on growing it gradually year after year, not just for this generation but for future ones as well.

The spending rule which we have settled on and enshrined in the Constitution is 50/50. Half for now, half for the future. As I explained earlier, this is fair and just and, as I would like to explain now, it also happens to be the right sustainable proportion to keep the reserves in proportion with the GDP, because let me take you through this back-of-the-envelope. Please get your back of envelopes out so we can do this sum.

Let us assume a long-term expected real return of 4%. It is roughly that. You can see it from GIC's numbers. MAS' is slightly lower. Temasek's is slightly higher, but let us, say, 4%. The 50/50 rule means we spend 2%, we save 2%. Okay? It means that the reserves should grow by about 2% per year because there is no other place for the reserves to grow.

Just now, Mr Sitoh enumerated all the other places and explained to you why there was no money in them. Land, because it is a conversion. The Budget, because it is not in surplus. And borrowing, issuing Government securities, because that is not really our money. It is borrowed and, one day, it will be claimed. And foreign exchange, that is also really not our money because people bring in money to be deposited in Singapore banks, they can take the money out of Singapore banks any time. So, just because the balance is sitting there does not mean you can take it home.

So, 50/50, 2% goes back into the reserves, the reserves will grow, all things going well, 2% per year. And our economy, all things growing well, will also grow, I hope, about 2% per year, because my work force is flat, my productivity, if I work very hard, I get 1.5% productivity growth a year. So, to make 2%, 2.5%, is already working very hard and doing quite well.

In other words, on present settings, with our present policy, the reserves will be growing about 2% per year. The GDP will be growing about 2% per year. The balance is the same every year. It is not getting bigger and bigger, more and more reserves, while the GDP languishes. And so, the contribution to our Budget, NIRC, will be about the same every year, about 3.5% of GDP.

And if you look at the last five years' Budgets, all of the figures are published, you will see that it has been about 3.5% a year. It has not gone 3.5%, 4%, 5%, suggesting that I have got more and more money in the kitty. It is about there. And, so, if I keep on doing this, I will keep on being able to do this and spending 3.5% from the reserves every year, saving me a doubling of the GST. I think that is a good thing.

And that is the way to protect our nest egg. It is the right thing to do. Yes, Singaporeans are facing higher cost of living. Yes, our spending needs have gone up and we need more programmes to cater and to look after an ageing population. And yes, the Government does have many programmes to help Singaporeans to cope with the cost of living. All kinds of them. Just now, the Leader of the House counted the ways. I do not have to count them again. But there are many.

And, in fact, we have covered not just the present generation and the younger generation, but also the older generations, too, because we had a Pioneer package, we had a Majulah package. We have not forgotten the people who brought us here. But each generation must spend within our means and each generation has been able to spend within our means and, even this generation, we can spend within our means.

It does mean that, from time to time, we have to revise our taxes, raise some of them, like the GST which we have just raised to 9%, and we have powerful reasons for doing so, which have been extensively debated. Our spending needs have gone up, especially for healthcare and the ageing population. And we know that we will need the money sooner rather than later.

Why do we do this? It is not just for the fun of it. Nobody relishes a tax increase. Not even the Ministry of Finance. Why should a Government volunteer unnecessarily to do something which it knows is going to be unpopular? But if it has to be done, we will do it, and that is what it means to take responsibility for governing our country.

We got here because of the careful tending of our forefathers. Despite the difficulties and the challenges which they faced, they still put savings aside so that we can enjoy this resource today. And we are fed much better off for it and grateful to them for it.

Now we, too, should fulfil our obligation to our children and grandchildren to protect their interest in this nest egg. This nest egg. It is the money of the people of Singapore, yes, but it is not the money only of this generation of the people of Singapore. It belongs to this generation. It belongs to future generations, too, and we have a responsibility to both. And if we fulfil that responsibility, in time, our children and grandchildren, too, can benefit from a steady stream of returns from the reserves and also have an umbrella to protect them come a rainy day.

We must not erode the patrimony, this family treasure, which we have inherited from our forefathers. Nor should we burden future generations with debt, nor mortgage their future. We are beneficiaries of our forefathers' sacrifice and vision, but we are also trustees protecting this inheritance for future generations. It is not just for us and we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren. This is the ethos and the compact which generations of Singaporeans have forged and it is one that, in fact, has been upheld across the aisle in this House.

During the Global Financial Crisis – I spoke about it briefly just now – we brought forward the FY2009 Budget to deal with the crisis and we had a crisis Budget. In the Budget – this is a Budget where we had the Job Support Scheme – and we were going to draw $4.9 billion from the Past Reserves. And in the Budget debate, Mr Low Thia Khiang questioned why the Government wanted to draw down on Past Reserves instead of using savings from the Government's current Budget. He said: "What is unusual about our resilience package is that the Government will be using our Past Reserves to fund two main components of the package, the Jobs Credit Scheme and a special risk sharing initiative." I think I misspoke, I said Job Support Scheme; it was the Jobs Credit Scheme.

"Past Reserves are a strategic asset meant for use in times of need, especially when the Government faces financial constraints due to unprecedented circumstances which require the Government to respond in the interest of the nation. Hence, I am surprised that the Government has chosen to set a precedent in asking the President for approval for a drawdown of our Past Reserves when it has enough savings from the current term of Government to fund the entire Resilience Package, and the resulting Budget deficit, which the Finance Minister has estimated at..." a certain amount.

So, it was a very reasonable question – actually it was a very polite objection – and it was right that he raised it and we debated it. And our answer was, we are doing this so that we have dry powder, and that there are current Reserves, we may well need it later. We put that aside. If we need to, we will use it. As it turned out, fortunately, we did not need to.

Two years later, in 2011, when the Government paid the $4 billion back to the Past Reserves, Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke again. He did the honourable thing and commended the Government and he said, in that Budget debate again, 2011, "In conclusion, Sir, the Budget this year has done one thing right. It has prudently put back into Past Reserves the $4 billion that the Government took in 2009."

So, this is how a responsible Opposition conducts itself. There was a common commitment to safeguard our Past Reserves and a recognition, a shared recognition, that they are a strategic asset only to be used for unprecedented circumstances.

Now, I hear the Opposition arguing that we should change the rules and draw more from reserves and that, of course they have no intention to raid the reserves far from wanting to bankrupt Singapore. They say we can easily afford what they are proposing. I conclude their tune has changed.

May I remind them that the changes they are proposing are not simply policy changes, but require amending the Constitution to draw and to spend more from Past Reserves which are protected by the President.

Some people say it is harder for this generation to abide by the same tight fiscal rules as before. They say that now growth is slower, the cost of living has gone up, which is true. But our forefathers, who put aside the surpluses which grew into the reserves, were much less well-off than us – to put it bluntly, much poorer than us.

Our standard of living is double or triple what our forefathers lived with and yet, they saved up surpluses for the future, whereas now, we hear arguments that we should draw more from the reserves on that basis that we need the money more urgently today! There is a Chinese saying, 创业难，守业更难，败家轻而易举. Hard to start, even harder to keep it going but all too easy to ruin and to lose everything.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team had anticipated this outcome, this political pressure. They knew that there would always be many worthy heart-tugging causes demanding Government resources. Every MP has got pet causes which he champions. Even Ministers have pet causes. Even Prime Ministers are allowed to have a few. We all want more things to be done, but we also know – and Mr Lee Kuan Yew knew – that that money would always be not enough. And he knew that it would always be politically tough to raise taxes and that is why he and his colleagues designed and implemented the Two Key scheme.

Some of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's senior colleagues told him that in locking up the reserves, he was trying the impossible. You know why? Because their philosophy was if a generation wants to spend the money, somehow, they will get their hands on it and they will do it. But Mr Lee Kuan Yew disagreed and decided he had to try his best. And it is up to us and for us now to prove that we can protect the nest egg and that Singaporeans are capable of being prudent and responsible, well beyond the founding generation. We are not "Ah Sia Kia". We are responsible. We are also forefathers one day of generations yet to be born.

The Government is elected, not just to take care of citizens today but also to secure the future of the country and the PAP Government has always done both. But in taking care of today's citizens, we are very cautious to safeguard the interests of young people not yet voting, future citizens not yet born and the long-term interests of Singapore.

In 2001, when we instituted the 50% rule applied to NII and amended the Constitution, Mr Lee Kuan Yew intervened in the debate because some MPs were proposing good causes to spend the money on, particularly old people. And he reminded everyone in Parliament, he said, at the end of the day, whom do we owe our deepest obligation to as the Government? To the future, not just to the present, certainly, not to the past.

We must protect the past reserves. It is our precious resource, our strategic advantage. It is a great source of comfort and reassurance that if we run into a jam or find ourselves in a tight spot, which is bound to happen every so many years and not so many years, we will have one extra card to play. We will not be destitute.

Other countries admire, even envy what we have. But they find it very hard to emulate what we have done. It was only in Singapore, only in those circumstances, only with that history and that generation and that phase of nation-building that we could do it. If it is gone, we will not be able to do it again either.

So, therefore, as for ourselves, we too must make a conscious effort to keep our system working. Singaporeans need to have the right instincts. Save when we can, resist the pressure to touch it, use only when we really must. Each of us must see ourselves as stewards and trustees, taking care of the interests of present and future generations. That is the way to keep this discipline, to keep this rule and to keep this system with two keys working well.

Ultimately, in a democracy like Singapore, on big issues like this, it is the people who will decide and the PAP is convinced that this is the right approach for Singapore. As long as the PAP Government is in power, this is what we will do.

If any other political party thinks that this is not the right approach, if they truly believe that we should dip into our reserves more, then bring it to the ballot box, put it upfront, say you want to touch, you want to spend, you want to shift the rules. Do not pretend that you are being just as prudent, only more kind-hearted. Campaign in the next General Election on this issue. Ask voters for a mandate to form the Government. Change their Constitution. Dismantle the second lock and key. Put this squarely to the people and let them decide that PAP will join issue with them and convince Singaporeans that our way is the right way for Singapore and I believe Singaporeans do believe us. Because, if I may come back to the IPS survey which we referred to and which you still have in your hands, it was not just a survey of the trust for input on reserves and therefore, trust in the PAP Government in general.

If you look at the paragraph under paragraph 3.3, it says, "In the case of the PAP Government, the statement was modified to refer to the level of trust in it to manage the reserves." In other words, Singaporeans have high confidence in the PAP Government's management of the reserves. And therefore, we are confident that we will win the argument and we will be able to get Singaporeans to do the right thing.

Taking a long-term view of the reserves, striking the right balance between present and future needs, these are vital responsibilities of any Singapore government. I have spent 40 years of my life stewarding, safeguarding, improving the system, continuing the work of those who had come before me. Now, I am preparing to hand over to my successor in good order, a Singapore which is more prosperous, more secure.

I ask everyone to help them maintain the prudent policies that have served us well to keep Singapore on the right track so that we can all continue to benefit from the nation's success for many years to come. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

8.10 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, thank you to the Prime Minister for his speech. I note the Prime Minister did not address the five principles of the WP with regard to the reserves. But be that as it may, I have a few clarifications for the Prime Minister.

The first point was the repetition of the point Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong made at last year's Budget debate – which was on Mr Low Thia Khiang's view on the withdrawal of the reserves arising from actions taken by the Government to deal with the Global Financial Crisis.

My response to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at that time, if I recall, was different times call for different measures. And a good example manifesting that point is the fact that the PAP Government is not returning the $40 billion back. So, different times, different measures.

But that said, I can understand the political urge to cherry-pick what Mr Low Thia Khiang says. I understand that. But Mr Low Thia Khiang had shared many views on the GST in this House. So, I hope to hear the front bench quoting him on the GST in future.

My second point is the more substantive issue that the Prime Minister raised. I think some are very helpful points.

The first really takes off from the exchange I had with the hon Member, Mr Neil Parekh about a concern the Prime Minister raised about how the returns can be volatile. I return to the speech made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in 2015, and I quote, "The NIRC system, after it was modified in 2008, we paid particular attention to ensuring the system will be sustainable and that there is no bias in favour of over-optimism in expected returns and thus, the likelihood of facing a situation where actual returns are, in fact, much lower than expected returns."

I am not trying to be obtuse about the point, but I think it is important to understand the NIRC framework. And if it is a conservative framework, then let us take it at that. Let us take it that is a conservative framework. But what the Prime Minister is suggesting that it may not be as conservative as Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suggested in 2015.

So, if the Prime Minister could clarify what is the position, because it will cause to turn anybody's view on how the NIRC ought to be used. Is it conservative or is it not conservative?

The third point I would like to raise is the point that, again, I had an exchange with the Leader of the House about land and the Prime Minister put it as land is just a conversion. I made it clear to the Leader of the House that I disagreed with how she had put the WP position.

But again, it will be helpful if the Prime Minister can share with this House if a single piece of land is sold repeatedly for as long as the lease lasts – how does that cohere with the Prime Minister's position that land is just a conversion? I think the Prime Minister will be right if we are talking about freehold land, but this is leasehold. So, if the Prime Minister could explain, I will be grateful. And if it means that we have to finesse, or we have to correct ourselves, I do not think the WP will have a difficulty in doing that.

On the IPS survey that the Prime Minister referred to, there are points that are made in there which suggests serious questions as to expenditure funding going forward. At the same time, I do not dispute that there are also positions that participants took, be it in the pre-survey or post-survey which showed that they agreed with the PAP Government on certain issues. I do not dispute that.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank, from the bottom of my heart, the Leader of the Opposition for raising these questions and giving me the opportunity to clarify the matter further.

First, on Mr Low Thia Khiang and the GST. Yes, indeed, he did regularly oppose the GST – every time. Introducing it at 3%, pushing it up from 3% to 5%, which I did, going from 5% to 7%, which Tharman Shanmugaratnam did as Finance Minister.

And we reminded the WP of this, only to be told by your ex-MP, Mr Leon Perera, that now that it has reached 7%, you do not oppose that, but you oppose going to 9%. The Hansard is an open book. We can all refer to it readily, and soon, we will be able to do a generative AI search on it. And all these facts will come out and I am not hallucinating.

Secondly, on volatility of the returns to be reconciled, with Tharman saying that the estimate is conservative. There is nothing to reconcile. It is true. The estimate is conservative, but it is an estimate. It is an estimate of a random variable. A variable which can be high, which can be low, which can be middling, which nobody knows which is going to be, but to the best of our judgement, this is the estimate of probably the middle point, a median or the mean or some measure and therefore it gives some idea of the range of outcomes which are possible.

And furthermore, it is an estimate for 20-year returns. Long term. In fact, GIC does it not just 20 years, but equilibrium returns. Meaning, assuming the world is in order and nobody is recovering from a slump or a crash or a depression or a mania bubble. Everything is in order. Well, these are the returns, these are the rates at which we expect equities to pay back, to appreciate, bonds, cash and so on.

How much does that translate into next year's return five years from now, 10 years from now, God only knows. It can be that you have 10 years, 15 years of bad markets. It happened in the 1970s and early 1980s. It can be that you have 10 years of boom. It has happened. The tech bubble and then, more recently, another bubble; maybe, now an AI bubble to come.

But it is a random variable and we are trying to estimate what is going to happen and we are trying to make a prudent judgement. So, I am not judging the tail, the most optimistic outcome or the bottom, the most awful outcome, which is not just zero, but minus 10 minus 20, there could be a crash. But where do you think is a reasonable middling scenario? And that is the number which we will plan on and which we will use to draw on the reserves. And if it turns out that next year markets perform better, well, my reserves will grow, "heng!", happy! If it turns out that markets perform worse, I have already drawn the money, the reserves will go down sharper, it cannot be helped, I have already spent the money. These are random outcomes. So, I hope that clarifies and it will help the WP to make your explanations easier for us to understand.

Land, yes, you can sell it over and over again. You cannot sell a freehold over and over again. You can sell leasehold over and over again. So, if you sell a 30-year leasehold, I can sell the first 30 years now. I can sell another 30 years. If I sell it now, I will get very little money. I can sell it at the end of the first 30 years. I can sell another 30 years. At the end of that 30 years I can sell, yes another 30 years and so on forever. So, does that mean the leasehold is worth 30, $1 plus $1 plus $1 plus $1 plus $1 forever? No. There is such a thing called an interest rate, a discount rate.

And if you add all those payments together and discount them, you get the price of the land for freehold, at least in principle.

So, if you sell the freehold land, it is one price, if you sell the 30-year lease, it is another price, it is shorter, but you are only selling that 30 years and you get in 30 years' time, you have the chance of selling it again and again. And if you add up all those 30-year lease earnings, well, that should get you the freehold value.

So, if you sell the land once and you want to spend the money now, you are actually saying I used to own this land. I rent it out, I collect rent every every month or every year, over the next 30 years I will collect rent every month, I can spend it every month.

But now, I sell the land, I collect 30 years of lease premium upfront, I spend it today. You are cheating. You can spend it over the next 30 years as Ms Hazel Poa suggests, it is not an unthinkable proposition. You can put it away, you can invest it, spend the investment returns as we are doing, which is also sensible. But to say that you can take it forward and you can spend it and do not worry because in 30 years' time, I will get it back. You tell your banker, "In 30 years' time I'll pay you back. Same dollar. I borrow $1 from you, in 30 years' time, I'll give you back the hongbao". See what he says to you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, with regard to the land point that the Prime Minister was referring to, I think the issue here is, at the end of the 30-year lease, the money has to go back into the reserves once the land is sold. So, it is the same piece of land that is sold. Every time it is sold, the land sale receipts go into the reserves. That is the only point I am seeking confirmation off from the Prime Minister.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, of course, every time I sell the land I put money into the reserves, but I am not putting the money into the reserves all today. I am putting it in a stream of payments, 30 years apart. And that means the money which you are paying in 30 years from now, today has to be discounted by whatever interest rate the bank is charging, multiplied by 30 years. It is not worth $1 for $1. Maybe 10 cents for $1. And the next one after that, maybe one cent for $1 and that series converges.

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? I was going to invite Mr Leong, but I know he has run off for a short bio break, so, I request everyone just hold on for a while, because he is due to make his closing speech.

Okay, Mr Leong is back. Mr Leong, can I now invite you to make your closing speech?

8.23 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Prime Minister, Minister and the Members for participating in this debate. Indeed, it is an honour for Hazel and myself.

There has been a lot of discussion and debate on various topics. We understand all the good things that the Past Reserves will bring to us and bring to our country, but what I want to emphasise today, is that all the good things that the Prime Minister, the Minister and other PAP Members have said will not go away even if we reveal our reserves. And it is right to reveal the reserves to the Singaporeans who are the rightful owners of the reserves. People in the know like myself, we can make an estimate. Just like any speculators, they can make an estimate from the data, from the statistics released by the Government. But Singaporeans need to know. We need to put Singaporeans, all of them on the same page because we are all in this together.

So, all the good things that the Prime Minister, the Minister the PAP Members have said, they are not going to go away after we reveal our reserves. And the reasons, I will say afterwards again.

And it will not go away. If some of the policies that PSP and WP have proposed are implemented – we have already said again and again. Of course, the Prime Minister said, a little here a little there, you are going down the hole, be careful. And with the wealth of knowledge and experience the Prime Minister has, of course, we will take his advice very seriously.

But at the same time, we still think that for Singaporeans of today, there is a sense that they want to do better, but the environment is as such that they seem to be facing a lot of limitations. So, we are here, talking about better policies, than what the PAP is offering today. The PAP policies are not that bad, but we think we can do better together. This is because what we are proposing is only going to slow down the reserve accumulation, and in exchange for that, to postpone the taxes increases so as to help Singaporeans cope with inflation and rising property prices. By the way, inflation, rising property prices, we can also say part of it is attributed to the policies of the Government.

So, we are talking about better policies here. I hope in this Chamber, we can discuss and debate things, so that we can bring these better policies out and not keep saying that whatever the Opposition says, this is going to bring us down. That is not necessarily true. If you look at the details of the things, the policies, the opinions that PSP, and I think – although I cannot speak every time for WP, those things that we are we are proposing. We aim to be a responsible Opposition.

After today's debate, I am sure many Singaporeans will continue to be disappointed, that this Government probably would still not want to disclose the figure of our financial reserves. Despite all the reasons I have given, that it will not compromise the stability of our Singapore dollar and our economy.

Let me elaborate a bit more on that. Relying on the experience I have in the financial industry and also based on my exchanges with Members, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, and the feedback from Members Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

First, I think the issue of defending our Singapore dollar against speculators and the issue of disclosing our reserves are actually two different issues. Because to defend our Singapore dollar against the speculators, first of all, the PAP Members had mentioned about the Hong Kong dollar peg, George Soros' attack on the Pound and all that. But they fail to point out that all these are what we call fixed exchange rate systems. And, of course, the speculators will attack the fixed exchange rate system when there is a mispricing. But our Singapore dollar is essentially a float. It is a floating exchange rate system. As long as MAS runs its monetary policy properly and we have full confidence in MAS, and makes sure our Singapore dollar value is in line with our economic fundamentals, that is the most important line of defence.

And, of course, there are short-term speculators who may still come in to test and try their luck. Then, our MAS today, I would say have sufficient official foreign reserve to defend ourselves. MAS has official foreign reserves equivalent to 80% of our GDP. How many countries in the world today have that? That is a very strong defence already. In fact, there are other reasons why MAS have very good control over the forex market and control over the value of our Singapore dollar, but I would not go too much into that.

So, we have all the tools and the position and advantages to defend the Singapore dollar. But to reveal the figure of our reserve to the Singaporean is important for the Singaporeans to have full confidence without any other misconceptions. Full confidence and full knowledge of what our country has in the reserves.

I hope Singaporeans do not need to wait for another 56 man years before they get an answer about our financial reserves at least. I like to emphasise here again. That Singaporeans are the owners of the reserves and they are entitled to the precise information of at least the financial reserves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that today's debate has helped Singaporeans gain more insight into our public finances and has put more Singaporeans on the same page on Singapore's financial position.

Even though the budget and the reserves are very technical topics that may not appeal to many Singaporeans, I have chosen to make many speeches in this House on these issues, because they fundamentally impact our cost of living, quality of life, economic competitiveness, income equality and social cohesion. It is especially important in the past two years because the Government has made a number of tax increases that PSP thinks are not necessary.

Given the fact Singaporeans are facing unprecedented problems in terms of cost of living and runaway property prices and, anyway, in our opinion at least our budget and reserves we still have the leeway.

I also hope that by having more discussion on these issues, we can dispel the misconceptions and fake news relating to our reserves.

Today, I do not think the majority of Singaporeans are really fully confident that we have over $1 trillion dollars of reserves. Why? Because when you listen to some of the talk on the ground, they say, "If we have so much reserves, why is the Government keeping our CPS savings?" I have to explain to them actually these are two different issues. CPF are for your retirement, has nothing to do with the fact that we do not have reserves. But this is a misconception, nevertheless, and we have to address that.

Some fake news in the social media say Singapore has external debt equals to 200% of our GDP. You know how we get that? From the Government financial statements because we have total liabilities of about $1 trillion. But those are not real liabilities actually. But we must explain to the Singaporeans that we have all these assets. If not, the fake news will continue to be there. And, of course, all the rumours about the performances of GIC and Temasek, which I think are sometimes very unfair for the fund managers in those two organisations.

So, I would like Singaporeans to have three takeaways from today's debate.

First, our financial reserves amount to more than $1.2 trillion at least. Ms Hazel Poa has explained two methods to calculate this based on the figures published by the Government in the Government financial statements.

This $1.2 trillion, as I mentioned, will also continue to grow although the Prime Minister, the Minister and many Members have said that the rate of return on the financial reserves are not certain, not for sure. Yes, granted.

But there are other sources of growth and by the way, the 4% the Prime Minister mentioned about long-term investment growth, that is a standard assumption made by investment management entities. And, of course, you can say that okay, in a few years' time the whole world will change but that 3% to 4% is based on a long-term forecast of the investment returns generated by these investment firms' forecast. I mean, the actual track record of investment based on a universe of asset classes and this is a standard measure used by the investment firms worldwide. It is not something very special.

So, we can use 4% or maybe a bit more conservative 3%, but that is a reasonable number because as long as this world, this Earth is still intact, human beings will have economic activities and their economic activities will generate a return.

The second takeaway is that the continued accumulation of reserves comes at a cost to Singaporeans. The cost can come in the form of higher taxes, higher property prices, higher cost of living or lower interest for CPF balances, depending on which of the five sources of growth the new reserves come from.

Hence, the cost of accumulating reserves has a direct impact on some of the top concerns of Singaporeans, such as the affordability of HDB flats, the rising cost of living, retirement adequacy, prospect for the younger Singaporeans and a host of other social ills.

PSP also would like to continue to grow our reserves at the current rate, if not for the fact that the heavy costs to Singaporeans are becoming more and more apparent, especially with the Government's tax increases over the last two years.

We have asked about the reserves, we have asked about the land sales, NIR. And the Government has said all cannot be used.

So, today in my debate, I then said how about NIRC? The NIRC also does not seem to be totally used for the benefit of Singaporeans. I mean, and it is a matter of interpretation, but I pointed out some of the NIRC has been locked up. Some of the NIRC has been applied to very long-term infrastructure projects, including coastal and flood protection, all that. Coastal and flood protection – these are our existential problem. Is this not an example that we should use our reserves or some parts of the reserves and not rely all this on the NIRC, which from the PSP's point of view is supposed to enhance the welfare of Singaporeans so as to avoid the necessity to increase taxes. Of course, you take that away, then you have to increase taxes.

The third takeaway is, fortunately, we actually do not need to draw down our reserves, but just slow down the rate of reserve accumulation marginally to produce much better economic outcomes for Singaporeans. And that is the message that Opposition has been presenting in this House. We are not being fiscally irresponsible. We are just saying policies can be better.

There is no tension between providing for present-day Singaporeans and continuing to provide for future generations – although hon Member Vikram Nair has cast doubts on that. But I have asked him that question whether he knows how much reserves we are accumulating each year and how much are our policies are going to spend, even at the very worst.

The numbers are as follow. We are accumulating reserves by the tens of billions. According to my checking the Government financial statements and all that, probably about $50 billion a year, $50 billion to $100 billion, depending on which year it is.

And over the last two years, we are lucky. When there was a huge influx of capital into our country, the Government was able to accumulate an additional $250 billion. Additional reserves over the last two years.

So, with that, we are accumulating reserves by tens of billions and we are proposing policies that spend at the very worst, very worst a few billion dollars. Is that not a win-win situation? Because not that we want to spend the money but present-day Singaporeans, many need the money especially the second half of Singaporeans in terms of income.

But this is not happening because the PAP Government was overly conservative fiscally and it has continued to raise taxes and fees which will maintain the current rate of reserve accumulation and in exchange giving out ad hoc handouts to appease Singaporeans.

That is why we are confident that some of our policies, long-term policies, even implemented, it will not lead to a big increase in the budget because there are so many of these ad hoc schemes that you can actually integrate into some long-term scheme.

PSP strongly supports fiscal prudence. But we believe we have set aside too many resources currently and inadequate spending and investment and heavy overall taxes have weakened the present-day Singaporeans. I am sure Singaporeans will much prefer to be taxed less than receiving ad hoc handouts from the Government.

I hope this House today will appreciate that PSP is not even asking for more NIR or land sales revenue for the budget, at least for today we are not asking although we support all these policies. What we are saying today that even the NIRC has not been totally deployed for the full benefit of Singaporeans. And there is also this artificial deficit created by the current policy of charging land cost on HDB flats.

None of the policies that PSP recommended will weaken fiscal prudence and compromise our future ability to spend on any crisis that may come up in the future. In fact, what our policies are aiming at is to increase our social cohesion, increase, improve the conditions and the quality of life of Singaporeans, so that we have a stronger, present-day Singaporean Core and we can take crisis in our stride.

Mr Speaker, we want Singaporeans to be confident in Singapore's future by giving them the true and complete picture of a strong financial position. A strong financial foundation is a good start. With the resources we have accumulated as a nation, we are confident that we can realise a new social compact together.

The 4G PAP leadership has presented a new social compact, Forward SG, which contains many invaluable insights from 200,000 Singaporeans on what future Singapore they want. We share Singaporean's aspirations to pursue fulfilment and contentment, instead of simply focusing on material needs. What is needed next are concrete policy prescription to realise their future.

PSP thinks that financial freedom is the key to enabling Singaporeans to realise the aspirations they have articulated in Forward SG. When relieved of their financial burden, Singaporeans will be free to exercise their creativity, make their plans to realise their own potential and lead a happy life.

As the most important way to enhance financial freedom for Singaporean is to lower housing cost, PSP has tirelessly pushed for the Affordable Homes Scheme and Millennial Apartments Scheme to be implemented. I would like to reiterate again that implementing these schemes will not need to draw down our reserves, but just accumulate a little bit less. The raiding of reserves allegation by the Government is just a distraction.

PSP will continue to share with Singaporeans policies to facilitate a happy life and to ensure Singapore remains a secure place to live in, with rising incomes and good jobs for everyone, not just the rich and famous.

Today, many Singaporeans are struggling with their finances, even as Singapore becomes a paradise for the rich and famous, and sometimes the unscrupulous, like those in our recent money laundering case. The household expenditures survey in 2020 shows that the bottom 20% of Singapore households by income, in 2018, spent $2,235 in expenses and got $2,570 in income, including employer CPF. This means that after deducting the employer and employee CPF contributions, the bottom 20% of households, or more than 200,000 households are essentially, in deficit and must rely on Government handouts, charity or loans from legal or illegal moneylenders to survive. For the second quintile, it is $3,752 in expenses versus $5,981 in income, again, including employer CPF. After accounting for CPF contributions, this group of Singaporeans have very little left to save each month.

The survey suggests that the bottom 40% of Singapore households are really struggling to survive while the Government has accumulated lots of savings or reserves. It will be the right policy for the Government to start to relax its fiscal grip, which may reduce reserve accumulation slightly, but to offer more financial support to this group of Singaporeans.

We should also be worried about the many social ills we are grappling with today, which can be traced back, at least partly, to financial difficulties. The most important ones today are the low total fertility rate and increasing mental health issues. A pre-conference poll shared by the IPS at the Singapore Perspective Conference last week found that high costs and stress were the top reasons for not wanting to have children across all age groups. If the current generation of Singaporeans are struggling to maintain their standard of living, what incentive do they have to have children?

We acknowledge that the share of welfare spending in the Budget has increased significantly since 2011. But these spending do not address the root causes of the harsh economic realities faced by Singaporeans. Ad hoc handouts do not change the structural economic realities that are faced by present-day Singaporeans. After receiving the temporary relief, they continue to be burdened by the rising cost of living and the prospect of having to downgrade from their current HDB flats in order to retire.

Without policy changes to address these structural economic issues, lower-income and even middle-class Singaporeans will become more and more dependent on Government handouts to survive. This is not the kind of future we want for Singapore and Singaporeans. We must find other ways to improve the conditions of the Singaporeans. PSP wants all Singaporeans to benefit from our economic prosperity, not just the rich and famous. This is the future that PSP wants for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, our Past Reserves is the pride of our nation, a monumental task achieved by the trust between the people and the Government. To maintain that trust, the Government must now ensure that the Past Reserves are put to work for present-day Singaporeans to ensure that they can be competitive and lead a happy life in a globalised world.

The well-being of the current generation affects the ability of the future generations to thrive. A family that is constantly stressed by financial worries is not a good environment for children to grow up in. More than leaving behind national reserves to our future generation, it is more important to ensure that they are being brought up in a conducive family and social environment which allows them to develop the necessary skills to do well in the globalised world.

PSP's policy proposals like the Affordable Homes Scheme and Millennial Apartments Scheme are aimed at making our past Reserves work harder for both the present-day generation and future generations. We especially want to give the financial freedom to our younger Singaporeans to establish themselves quickly so that they can strive towards their ambition early in their lives.

When this House supports this Motion, it will reaffirm that our budget and reserve accumulation policies should aim at laying the financial foundations for every Singaporean of every generation to achieve a life of fulfilment and contentment. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) tabled this motion today to request two things from the Government on behalf of the people.

First, disclose the total amount of our reserves, allowing the people to have an accurate understanding of our finances and related policies. Second, actively utilise our country's substantial financial resources to help reduce the financial burden on the people and improve their quality of life.

The total amount of our financial reserves should not be a secret, because it is the hard-earned money of the people. The reserves have five main sources, including land sales revenue and investment returns of CPF deposits, all of which come from the people, especially considering that much of the land was acquired by the Government from our forefathers at low prices.

The total amount of our national reserves also does not need to be a secret, as the Government has already disclosed a significant amount of financial information to comply with regulations from international organisations, such as the IMF. With this information, anyone, including foreign exchange speculators, can estimate the size of our reserves.

According to PSP's estimation, excluding land reserves, our total reserves has reached $1.2 trillion. Furthermore, from these assets, we earn nearly $50 billion in net investment returns each year. Therefore, the Government's earlier portrayal of itself as a poor Ah Gong and the comparison of our vast reserves to "coffin money" is misleading.

PSP urges the Government to be a responsible leader and disclose the total amount of our reserves, allowing every citizen to use this information to assess our nation's fiscal and tax policies. With the investment returns from the reserves each year, we will have sufficient financial resources to cope with the increased medical expenses resulting from our aging population in the future. Therefore, PSP strongly opposes the two consecutive increases in GST and property tax in 2023 and 2024.

These two tax increases and the increase in the Government's fiscal surplus allow the Government to accumulate more reserves, but they also seriously exacerbate inflationary pressures and increase the people's burden. Therefore, the current predicament faced by the people is not solely due to external factors, such as the Ukraine war; the Government also bears some responsibility.

In addition, since 1985, the Government has been charging land costs to HDB. These costs have increased with the rise in property prices, leading to a significant increase in BTO prices. However, high BTO prices only absorb a portion of the land costs. The remaining portion is subsidised by HDB, resulting in a deficit for HDB, which is ultimately borne by all taxpayers.

PSP strongly urges the Government to waive the land costs for owner-occupied HDB flats. This policy would allow every generation of young Singaporeans to realise their dream of owning a home at an affordable price around the age of thirty. Also, they would not need to sell their HDB flat in old age and would have sufficient CPF savings for retirement. Without the lingering worry of repaying housing loans for years, the next generation of Singaporeans can boldly seize the opportunities brought about by globalisation, creating a better economic future for our country.

PSP believes that a responsible Government and party should not solely pursue the maximisation of reserves but should aim to maximize the happiness of the people. PSP will do everything in its power to persuade the Government and assist it in achieving this goal.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I beg to move. For country, for people.

9.01 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any Members who have clarifications to ask of Mr Leong Mun Wai? No.

We have come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall now put the questions to the House for a decision.

We have four amendments proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa. We will deal with the amendments first.

Amendment No 1 is, "In line 1, to delete 'review' and insert 'ensure'."

The question is, "That Amendment No 1 be made", put.

Mr Speaker: As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

Some hon Members say "No".

Mr Speaker: Does any Member wish for his or her dissent to be recorded before I declare the result? For those who wish to, I request for you to stand and we will record your dissent.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong stood at their seats for their dissent to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Okay. We have that recorded. Thank you. The Ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Question, "That Amendment No 1 be made", agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 2 is, "In line 1, to delete 'current'."

The question is, "That Amendment No 2 be made", put.

Mr Speaker: As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No". I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Question, "That Amendment No 2 be made", agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 3 is, "In line 2, after the words 'reserve accumulation policies', to insert 'always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable'."

The question is, "That Amendment No 3 be made", put.

Mr Speaker: As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Are there any Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded? Kindly stand. I thought I heard a very faint "No".

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I confirm that we can object to the Motion once —

Mr Speaker: I will go through the amendments and then we will have the amended Motion.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: That is right. We will wait for that.

Mr Speaker: So, do you want your dissent to Amendment No 3 be recorded?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: It is alright.

Mr Speaker: It is alright? Okay. I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Question, "That Amendment No 3 be made", agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 4 is, "In line 3, to delete 'continuing to save' and insert 'planning and providing'."

Question, "That Amendment No 4 be made", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The amendments have been agreed to. The Original Motion as amended is now before the House.

The question, "That this House calls on the Government to ensure its budget and reserve accumulation policies always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable in order to help present-day Singaporeans reduce their financial burdens and improve their quality of life, while planning and providing for future generations of Singaporeans."

Mr Speaker: As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

Some hon Members say "No".

Mr Speaker: I think the Ayes have it. Does any Member wish for his dissent to be recorded before I declare the result? Kindly stand.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong stood at their seats for their dissent to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Okay. We have it recorded. Thank you. You may sit down. The Ayes have it.

Original Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House calls on the Government to ensure its budget and reserve accumulation policies always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable in order to help present-day Singaporeans reduce their financial burdens and improve their quality of life, while planning and providing for future generations of Singaporeans."

9.06 pm

Mr Speaker: Leader.