http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/460…
Wijeysingha takes Tharman and press to task
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Vincent Wijeysingha
The quality of reporting in the local papers today on the
SDP’s Shadow Budget 2011was predictably
banal, absent of any serious analysis that would help Singaporeans
differentiate between the ideas of the SDP
and those of the PAP.
For example, in its SDP unveils its
‘Shadow Budget’, Today (whose slogan is: ‘We Set You
Thinking’
, did not
deal with the merit of the SDP’s budget
proposals in themselves but compared them unfavourably against
PAP programmes.
Referring to the SDP’s proposal to abolish
GST for basic foodstuffs and medicines, it
said:
‘”Such a proposal is not new….Then, Finance Minister Tharman
Shanmugaratnam referred to a household expenditure survey, which
showed that the most commonly cited eight essential items make up
only 5 per cent of the expenditure of the bottom 20 per cent of
households.”
’
In figures recently published by the Department of Statistics, the
average income per household at the bottom twenty percent is $2040.
Five percent of household expenditure is $102.
Does Today (and the Finance Minister) really think that ordinary
people spend only that amount on household essentials every month
($102 divided by 4.5 weeks in a month would be $23 per week)? Is
the Minister so out of touch with the reality of family spending?
If so, he has no business being in charge of finance.
His other justifications are also unintelligent. Exempting
GST would not mean raising it on other goods
to balance revenue and expenditure. There is no reason to argue
that it cannot be raised on only certain goods such as luxury
goods, increasing taxation at the higher end of the scale, reducing
expenditure through cost savings such as thinning down the
PMO, and eliminating subsidies for foreign
students, all of which proposals the Shadow Budget 2011 have
proposed.
These are not the real reasons for the PAP’s GST policy, and we all know
it in the SDP. The real PAP objection to our proposals are twofold. First: it
taxes the wealthier more and this is a policy anathema to the
PAP since it is a party committed to the rich
and the exploitation of the poor rather than to all Singaporeans.
Second: the PAP stands to have its own
salaries, perks and lavish conditions reduced if smaller and frugal
government is imposed.
Today also reported Mr Tharman as saying:
‘”That is why we have decided that the most effective way of
raising revenues to help the poor is to administer a simple
across-the-board GST rate on all products in
the market and to, instead, compensate the lower-income group
through more offsets and use the GST revenue
to fund Workfare.”
’
Using subsidies to assist Singaporeans after higher taxes are
imposed is a foolhardy way of managing household income. What the
Minister is saying is this: First, I set taxes at a rate you cannot
afford. Then I use those taxes to give you a subsidy so that you
can pay the tax. If this is the best form of taxation the Minister
can conceive, there is clearly no skills match between him and his
job.
But we, the people, are not easily fooled. Subsidy-giving
enables the PAP to say that it is a caring
government that dispenses generosity. The PAP
wants the people to think that no other party would, firstly, be
able to amass such riches and, secondly, be kind enough to give it
away. It is untrue. But more importantly, it is inept.
Additionally, Workfare does not assist the average employee to
cope with rising costs. The vast bulk of Workfare does not enter
the pockets of Singaporeans, it is put into their CPF account, the spending of which is deferred. Workfare
is a red herring.
The quality of PAP policymaking and of
debate are abysmal. But that is no surprise, given that they are
essentially bureaucrats who are absorbed into the ruling party
purely to give expression to the views of one man, the former Prime
Minister, from whose outdated ideas of government and
administration, the newer leaders has been unable to escape.
For instance, the productivity measures we have seen in
government budgets in years past have been totally without success
but, again, found their way into the 2010 Budget. It will be
interesting to see if our Finance Minister retains them in the one
he will announce tomorrow.
It is also unfortunate that our newspapers do not reflect these
simple and logical observations about taxation. At the press
conference, I reminded the press that they have an almost sacred
duty to inform Singaporeans. Unfortunately, it continues to be
clear that their real duty is to put the best gloss on PAP rhetoric. And when that rhetoric is so appalling and
unintelligent, it only results in confirming the stereotype of the
press as the mouthpiece of the PAP.
The Straits Times argued previously that the opposition has no
one to blame if it does not do well in the polls. This argument is
entirely debunked when his colleagues in the press continue to
parrot the government line without any educated or informed
comment.
We wait to see if the media will act responsibly in the days and
weeks to come; if it will conduct a fair and balanced analysis on
the SDP’s Shadow Budget and a comparison with
the government’s Budget so that Singaporeans can make an informed
choice at the coming General Elections.
Or will the press simply devote many column inches to praising
the Finance Minister for his wisdom and munificence?
Be Our Supporters:
http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp