Okay, we need to, be more of, say, like a welfare state, right? To provide security for our current citizens. Because if there's no current citizens, there's no future citizens, right? So I would, amid all the debate, which I totally love, right. I would hope that, the different alternative parties, the different political parties can, maybe try to articulate in one or 2 or 3 sentences what their vision of future for Singapore is. It's an excellent point, and I'm sure you'll agree it's extremely well put as well. And that's that's why you're a prof. Now, I think this sort of wisdom helps us, helps us avoid a confrontational approach, you know. And I don't think personally, I'm averse to that sort of an approach. Zero sum. If I'm right, you have to be wrong, that approach. And so thank you. Thank you, sir, for saying that. Now, my question is this right. If in this election, as it was the case in the previous elections, there's tremendous pressure on political parties, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong to come up with specific recommendations, specific policies. If you ask me, I think it's ridiculous. This is this is an election campaigning period. This is not the time to sit down and look at nuts and bolts and specific where did you get that number from? And so on. You know, it's futile. Going back to what he says, I think it's a lot more meaningful if during the hustings, the nine days, for example, we spend a little bit more time asking about the principles, what is it that you stand for your party instead of how are you going to fund it, and so on, which is useful. But we miss the wood for the trees in the process. So thanks for the reminder, sir. Yes and I do some social work in the Indian Muslim community. Right. I did a quick check on free formal education, housing, etc. and then l checked it. Which are the countries that is offering it and what are the tax rates there? Denmark tax to GDP 46.9. Personal income tax 56%. Sweden 42 and 52%. Norway 42 and 38%. And the VATs are, VAT is the GST equivalent. 25% plus, minus and 24, etc.. Compared to Singapore tax to GDP 15 to 20 for the corporate tax I believe and personal income tax at 22%.How would you reconcile between these numbers? Because we can't be charging our corporate tax at 50% and VAT at the exorbitant 25% the existing. If we go that way, do we have to adjust the tax rate at these levels. If we go which way. If you go the free education and, you know, healthcare. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that, we do need to increase taxes if we want this. That's how the number shows it. If you want it to be sustainable in the longer term, if you want it to be sustainable, you would need to increase taxation or income some way. Exactly. Right? Exactly. That's these are the countries that are offering it already. We are in a situation of overtaxing not not there's a surplus that's telling us it's not. It's not I say, it's a figure that is telling us, okay, the surplus after you give $2 billion of vouchers. Now why is that so? Because Norway didn't have COE. Right. There's a lot of indirect taxes in Singapore even for the business. If you ask the businesses they are very quite pissed off with all the indirect taxes levies, workers levies. There's a big bulk. But I think I think the question is, how do you come up with a system that is sustainable? 5 years, 12 years? May l answer that? Yes, please. I have. Thank you for that question. As I have said before in my introduction, if you look at the numbers now, it does not require the government to tax the people any extra. The money is there, all right. And the money and the what the government is doing is with these monies, it is just salting it away in the reserves. You look at you. You think about it. Despite the GST hikes last year there was a 6.4 billion surplus. So really there was no need for GST hike, was there? You know and from 1999 to 2019 the surplus was 40 billion. So this is a government that runs surpluses every single year. All right. Maybe except for the Covid period, but come back to the CPF annualised returns. That does not require extra tax. You look at the special transfers. It means that the government has this money, which is why it is transferring into endowments and trusts. The money is there. And finally, your NIRC** ( net investment returns contribution) that is generated from the sovereign wealth funds and all that. ( Watch here on NIRC ) So again the funding is there. There's absolutely zero need to tax further. That is my point. In the interest of time, because there are a couple of other hands that have gone up. Right. Let's just leave it at that for now. Your point is made in the sense that, I mean, those are welfare states. I mean, to put it very bluntly, those are welfare states. Your point, your sentiment is if you were to just go that way, it's a slippery slope, to use the government's term. The slippery slope. Right. Your point and so on. Is, is we have enough money and we are generating at the current circumstances, current levels. Actually it's sustainable. That's his point. I don't think we can take this discussion any further because we don't have the details to do so. And may I suggest that we leave it at that? The point is made. Right. I'd like to go to Seng Choon. You want to stand up, Seng Choon? This man, you remember him? He's the Singaporean of the Year. Give him a hand, man. Applause 👏 Come on. He founded Dignity Kitchen. Yeah. I lost what I want to say. That's the whole idea. Okay, go ahead. My name is Seng Choon, I'm the founder of Project Dignity. Actually, I read the manifesto before I came. And all the direction are focused on the same thing. Helping the less disabled, the less fortunate. The disabled, making Singapore a better society for all, if possible. And that is the right track. Now I want to share you an alternative way. Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for the country. So I started a social enterprise. So what I'm trying to say, every day I give 100 boxes to the Uncle, Auntie who cleans. At the hawker centres. I don't like to see 80 year old auntie still working hard cleaning table. I got five bookshop for mother who gave birth to disabled child. I will show you that the supposed support in Singapore is not that great. Because l started at Hong Kong and I got a chance to compare other countries. My question for the panel, and I think you all. I really have utmost respect for people who can stand up there and take on this task. How would you encourage people like, you know, my thing is a self-help policy. I help myself. I went to do it myself, I didn't ask. There's no grant for social enterprise. We're not private limited. We are just no charity status. So how you, as a panellist trying to encourage more Singaporeans to self-help? Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. How do you encourage more social enterprises like mine? I'm the exception. I'm the biggest in the market now, and I'm the only social enterprise that scale overseas. I have nearly 180 people work for me. 80% are disabled. So basically, maybe for the panellists from your experience and your kind heart, how do you encourage more Singaporeans? At the end of the day, Singaporeans helping Singaporeans, that's all. Okay. So how do you encourage that? So before that, let's give him a hand of applause. 80% of his workers are disabled right? Now, Seng Choon. My question to you is this you know, I've got to ask you the question. Who asked you to come? Okay. I thought you are coming for the food. That's all. My question is this. How much of help did you get from the government? None. And why not? You see, we are private limited. We are not a charity. You don't have, Institute of Public Character. So basically, you don't get your tax return. So the clever part of what I do is very simple. You create events, create projects, and then you go corporate because now every corporate has to do CSR, ESG. So take from the rich, give it to the poor. I wish. Why I don't get a lot of support because the definition of disability, you cannot button yourself. You cannot eat. You cannot walk through the. Maybe if you guys come in, can you please change the definition? Because definitely it's too, too restrictive. Yeah. And that is decades ago. They set this criteria that not many people qualify. And IQ 70. Bad luck is 71. You don't qualify. The guideline is very tight and seeing a therapist is not $30, $40. It's hundreds of dollars. So the cost of having a person with disability or now we are focusing on cancer, mental. The cost is very high. And somebody told me, sir, you cannot open this can of benefit for disabled. ERP is free, car parking is free. Everything is free. You can't. So that's the tough part. While I think we really applaud you for what you're doing. The larger point is it doesn't need to come in the form of a grant from the government, but it could be about easing on the regulations, easing, you know, making it easier for you to do good. Yeah. That's the point you are making. And it's a very good note to end the discussion on, you know, on a positive note. Right. So, l'd like to ask, you know, because we have to wrap up now. l'd like to thank you Seng Choon. l'd like to ask this question to the panelists, right. Let's make this your one minute wrap right. What is it that the current government can do to make this a much better home? After hearing what Seng Choon said, it's not necessarily about fiscal policies, money, but what can we expect reasonably from the next government to help us and has helped, especially people who are trying to do good, to do it better? So, we haven't heard from you for some time. No, because when we do our walkabouts in Nee Soon and in a constituency we are contesting in, we find that, food security for some families are is an issue. We are told anecdotal stories of neighbours knocking on doors to look for food for their children. The Lien Foundation, which is part of SMU. We did a study about 3 to 4 years ago and they found that 20% of the respondents do not have food security. So people go hungry for a meal every day in Singapore. So that worries us because this is a crazy rich country, right? But in a crazy rich country, we have a lot of poor people. They need an immediate handout. So that's why we are saying that, we need to help people who need an immediate hand up, and we can relook the way vouchers are given instead of being restrictive. You can only spend it on certain things, or you can only spend it in a certain manner, or it's given only to pay off. You know, another government agency like your S&C consolidate that, redistribute it in terms of per person, and then let them have the freedom of choice to decide so they may buy themselves a meal. 10% squander it away. Can't help it. but as what the late Toh Chin Chye said, Do not let what the 5% do, and you penalise the rest of the 95%. Right. So I think that should be a rule that we should follow. Yeah? So for us, food security is a problem. It worries us every time we walk around and people tell us there are food security issues. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Well, again, our slogan is Make Singapore Home Again. Yeah, we mentioned two times home. Why, why why do we select this? Because we do not feel like this is home. Partly because the government is not doing enough to show the care it should have. For example, he is not here. He was POFMA-ed for one case right. Yeah. Just because of a technical details are wrong. But the problem is still exist due to definition. That couple was stripped off part of her financial assistance because they cross a certain boundaries of income. And that is heartless. And I can tell you, in Singapore, over 70% of retirees get less than $500 from the CPF payout. And that is why people have food security problems. It is why people who are 80 years old, they still need to work. So the fundamental issue comes with the CPF and housing. Because we have been sold a false dream in the past, you do not need to get money out from a pocket because you paid your mortgage with your CPF. But the CPF money is for your retirement, so you have to solve it from the fundamental issue that to separate CPF and housing and that is part of our things. So and the definition of what constitutes hardship is not by your house that you stay, five rooms flat or executive. It's not because people are stuck with the house they cannot sell, but they don't have cash. And that's the reality on the ground. Got it. Thank you. l would like l mean, if I was in a position of power and I could decide, I would certainly want to do a lot more so that Singaporeans overall can regain a sense of dignity. And that was my slogan for us, you know, regaining our dignity, our I think in these difficult times, and I do blame it on globalisation because globalisation has created an inequality gap, which is unconscionable. And many Singaporeans have fallen through the cracks. But the government refuses to acknowledge that, and certainly I would be very sympathetic to organisations such as those run by Seng Choon. I would want the social welfare of this country, you know, to to grant them a lot more financial assistance so that they can, you know, develop the projects they want to do. And I don't mind if we are more socialist in this aspect because I think our people deserve it. That's my answer. Thank you. So my answer is going to be based on a hypothetical. We are going to have a new government, right? And how did you know that? Hypothetically, I hope that in the next five years, they will live up to one of the promises, and one of the promises is to want to be inclusive and to listen to everyone, for their different ideas. I think the Prime Minister said that he's very open to hearing from different ideas, and one way to be inclusive of different ideas is for the new government, the new civil service, maybe, to actually not just dismiss the different ideas that have come up in the various manifestos from the different alternative parties, but to have a serious look at the different ideas proposed by the different manifestos of different alternative parties, and if possible, don't be shy to adopt 1 or 2 of them. Because l think ultimately what everyone wants, including them, including the opposition parties, is to do better for Singaporeans. And I think, that is, what this whole democratic exercise every five years is what we want to achieve. To do better for Singaporeans. Thank you. As a moderator, I guess I have the last word. Number one, respect. I think this country can do a lot more with respecting people. You know, you can talk till the cows come home about diversity. You can have slogans, you can have all those things. But if you don't have basic respect for another person who has, who happened to have a different point of view, it's a lost case. So I would strongly urge that we use occasions like the election as opportunities for us to demonstrate that we have not lost this important human quality of respecting another individual, respecting another group, and we can do a lot better in getting rid of an adversarial stance. Nobody wins in an adversarial stance. So on that note, l'd like to say a very big thank you to the panellists for being here, even though they are better off actually being there, you know? But we really, really appreciate you coming here and to the audience for making time to be here and to my team and the friends at who have who are helping to organise this. A big thank you. Let's vote from the heart, wisely - from the heart, on polling day. Good evening.
[**What is Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC)?
The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) comprises:
• Up to 50% of the Net Investment Returns (NIR) on the net assets invested by GIC, MAS, and Temasek; and
• Up to 50% of the Net Investment Income (NII) derived from past reserves from the remaining assets.
The NII Framework was introduced in 2001 to protect at least 50% of actual net investment income. NII refers to the actual dividends, interest and other income received from investing our reserves, as well as interest received from loans, after deducting expenses arising from raising, investing and managing the reserves.
The NIR framework was subsequently introduced in 2008, which allowed the Government to spend up to 50% of the expected long-term real return (including capital gains) on the relevant assets. The expected long-term real rate of return (ELTRROR) refers to the investment rate of return that can be expected to be earned over the long term, after netting off inflation. The expected rates of return are based on the judgement of experienced investment professionals in the investment entities.
• Spending up to 50% of the expected returns strikes a balance between current and future needs. It allows us to take in some investment returns for spending, while continuing to grow our reserves.
• Relevant assets are defined in the Constitution as the net assets invested by GIC, MAS, and Temasek1, minus the liabilities of the Government (which include Singapore Government Securities and Special Singapore Government Securities). This ensures that we set aside returns to cover the costs of servicing our liabilities.
The NIR component was an enhancement in the following ways:
• Expanded the definition of investment returns to total returns, including capital gains (both realised and unrealised). This is more aligned with our asset allocation that is focused on maximising total returns over the long term. A spending rule based only on interest and dividends could have led to a bias toward investments that generate income rather than capital gains. This would be inconsistent with our objective of maintaining a diversified investment portfolio aimed at achieving long-term returns.
• Long-term expected rates of return (rather than year-on-year actual returns, comprising dividends and interest, under the NII component) rates of return are used used to smooth out the volatility of Government spending. For example, it ensures that the Government does not overspend in a bull market, and end up finding itself short of resources in a bear market.
• Real rates of return, i.e., net of inflation, (rather than nominal returns), are used to protect the purchasing power of our reserves. Otherwise, in a scenario of sustained high inflation globally, even if we were to earn reasonable nominal investment returns, our past reserves would be gradually eroded in real terms.
新的新加坡
好的，我们需要更像一个福利国家，对吧？为我们现在的公民提供安全保障。因为如果没有现在的公民，就没有未来的公民，对吧？所以，在所有这些我非常喜欢的辩论中，我希望不同的替代党派，不同的政党，也许可以尝试用一两三句话来表达他们对新加坡未来的愿景。这是一个很好的观点，我相信你也会同意我的观点非常好。这就是你成为教授的原因。现在，我认为这种智慧有助于我们，有助于我们避免对抗的方式。你知道，我个人并不反对这种方法。零和博弈。如果我是对的，你就一定是错的，这种方法。所以谢谢你。 先生，谢谢您这么说。现在，我的问题是，对吗？如果这次选举和上次选举一样，政党面临巨大压力，对吗？如果我错了，请纠正我，提出具体的建议和具体的政策。如果你问我，我认为这很荒谬。现在是竞选期。现在不是坐下来研究具体细节和你从哪里得到这个数字的时候。你知道，这是徒劳的
回到他所说的，我认为如果在竞选期间，比如说那九天，我们花更多的时间询问原则，你代表你的政党的立场是什么，而不是你将如何为它提供资金等等，会更有意义，这很有用。但在这个过程中，我们会只见树木不见森林。所以，谢谢您的提醒，先生。是的，我在印度穆斯林社区做一些社会工作。对。我快速查了一下免费正规教育、住房等，然后我查了一下。哪些国家提供免费正规教育，那里的税率是多少？丹麦税收占 GDP 的 46.9%。个人所得税 56%。瑞典 42% 和 52%。挪威 42% 和 38%。增值税是，增值税相当于 GST。 25% 加减 24 等等。相比之下，新加坡的企业税占 GDP 的 15 到 20，我认为个人所得税为 22%。您如何协调这些数字？因为我们不能以 50% 征收企业税，以现有的 25% 的高昂增值税征收。如果我们这样做，我们是否必须调整这些水平的税率。如果我们这样做，该怎么办。如果您实行免费教育和医疗保健。如果我理解正确的话，你的观点是，如果我们想要这个，我们确实需要增加税收。数字就是这么显示的。如果你想让它长期可持续，如果你想让它可持续，你需要以某种方式增加税收或收入。没错。对吗？没错。这些国家已经在提供它了。我们处于征税过高的境地，不是有盈余告诉我们事实并非如此。我说的不是，而是数字告诉我们，好吧，在你提供 20 亿美元的代金券之后的盈余。为什么会这样？因为挪威没有特遣队所属装备。对。新加坡有很多间接税，甚至对企业也是如此。如果你问企业，他们对所有的间接税征收、工人税非常恼火。占了很大一部分。 但我认为问题是，如何才能建立一个可持续发展的系统？5年，还是12年？我可以回答吗？好的，我回答了。谢谢你的提问。正如我之前在介绍中所说，如果你看看现在的数字，你会发现政府不需要向人民额外征税。钱就在那里，没错。政府用这些钱所做的就是把它存入储备金。你看看你自己，想想你自己。尽管去年消费税上调，但仍有64亿的盈余。所以真的没有必要提高消费税，对吧？你知道，从1999年到2019年，盈余是400亿。所以这个政府每年都有盈余。好吧。也许除了新冠疫情期间，但回到公积金年度化回报。这不需要额外的税收。 你看看特别转移支付。这意味着政府有这笔钱，这就是为什么它要转入捐赠基金和信托基金。钱就在那里。
No comments:
Post a Comment