Selling Land to fund expenditure is a 'NO, NO!'

Just as the Budget needs to be scrutinized, so too every suggestion and proposal from the House needs to be scrutinized.

Selling ASSETS instead of raising income to fund increased expenditure is a 'No! No!'. 

By Workers' Party's standard, tiny Singapore has lots of land to sell. Where? The land vacated by the port in Tanjong Pagar, the land where Paya Lebar Airport now sits. 

And did Pritam Singh explain how he came to 20% cap on proceeds? Was there a formula? Or did he pull it out of thin air? 

And HOW will a 20% cap on proceeds prevent a profligate government from selling land unnecessarily for spending? 

If that 20% cap does not produce enough $$$ for spending, a profligate government can sell MORE land to overcome the limitation of the cap. 

That cap will probably speed up the sale of land to fund spending. LOL

And we are talking about RECURRENT expenditure, not a one-time expenditure. 

And recurrent expenditure will keep going up. Give you an example. 

Even before GST is raised, WP's Daniel Goh has proposed in Parliament to increase the salary of nurses to close the gap in gender pay. 

If you're a nurse this will surely make you happy.

But as political leaders, you have to ask yourself how you will fund your policies in a sustainable way, not just say nice things that are pleasant to people's ears.

Pritam Singh accuses taxi drivers and hawkers of under declaring their incomes

True story. 

WP's Pritam Singh made broad statement about the self-employed, the taxi drivers and hawkers. They traditionally under declare their income, he said in Parliament. 

Pritam Singh also said that Smart nation and going cashless will render the prospect of them under declaring their income less probable. 

This will result in higher revenue from taxes clawed back from taxi drivers, hawkers and self-employed, which can then go to meet increased expenditure.

The context of this is simply that WP opposes GST and there are other sources of revenue - including taxes from income under-declaring taxi drivers and hawkers.

WP Sylvia Lim's illogical objection to the CLTPA

Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim's objection:

She said that by defining the activities for which a person can be liable for detention, it increases the minister's power. And by expanding the scope to include organized crime activity, it makes the minister a global policeman with no equal.

How does defining the scope of activities makes the minister all-powerful? 🙄

🙄

Law and Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam's response:

"In the past, the Minister had to be satisfied that a detention was necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore.

This is set out in the Act.

The amendments impose an ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT on the Minister.

Now the Minister can only order the detention if:-

(i) he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore – as was the position before; and

(ii) the activity is listed in the new Schedule to the Act.

This is something to be welcomed.

It sets out transparently the activities, and IMPOSES 2 REQUIREMENTS for detention INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL 1 REQUIREMENT." - Mr K Shanmugam on his facebook

"Ms Lim, again another rhetorical flourish, I will become a global policeman with the Bill. Makes a good soundbite, but it is useful for MPs to read the Bill before they make speeches, because we are dealing with serious matters involving the safety and security of Singaporeans." - Mr Shanmugam in Parliament

WP opposes the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act