SINGAPORE — Characterising this year’s Budget as a “Robin Hood budget”, as some have done, reinforces a perception of two Singapores — the wealthy on one side, and the lower and middle-class on the other — which is inaccurate, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh said on Wednesday (Feb 22).

However, Singapore must do more to guard against such a potential split in the nation, said Mr Singh, who is also secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP), in a speech in Parliament as part of a debate on the Feb 14 Budget.

“One Singapore is connected to the world as a hub economy. It is where high salaries and opportunities abound, and where locals, and crucially, many foreigners too, power diverse nodes of the economy,” said Mr Singh, who was the first Member of Parliament (MP) to speak in the debate.

“The other Singapore is one where the majority of Singaporeans live. It is one where there are perceptions of slowing social mobility, connected to the reality of high housing prices.”

In this side of Singapore, said Mr Singh, the prospect of upgrading to a condominium or landed property is no longer as realistic for Housing and Development Board (HDB) homeowners, and cars are out-of-reach luxuries.

“These two Singapores could easily become a reality that causes friction in society. Singapore is a tiny red dot and both these Singapores would unavoidably rub up against each other," Mr Singh said.

“As much as the Government endeavours to keep society open and bring new businesses and opportunities to Singapore and Singaporeans for the greater good, it is that second Singapore, where a very broad middle of Singapore lives and works and plays, which should never find itself unmoored and cynical about the future of Singapore.”

Noting that the Budget includes measures that “better equalise opportunities through fiscal intervention” — such as raising taxes and duties for high-end property and luxury vehicles — Mr Singh said the party supported the Budget.

“The interventions of the Workers’ Party for this debate would be in the spirit of this review of our social compact — envisioning how best society can position itself for an unpredictable and potentially far more disruptive future,” he added.

One commentator who used the Robin Hood reference was OCBC chief economist Selena Ling, who described Budget 2023 as "reminiscent of Robin Hood with a light touch" in a published commentary. Mr Singh said the Robin Hood reference had been used both in mainstream media and online.

Robin Hood is a mythical outlaw of early English history who took from the well-off to help the needy of his day.

QUESTIONS ON JOBS-SKILLS INTEGRATORS, CPF INCOME CEILING

In his speech, Mr Singh asked about the difference between the jobs-skills integrators initiative announced in Budget 2023 and the Industry Transformation Map.

Jobs-skills integrators are intermediaries to better connect industry players with training institutes and schools to improve job-matching for students and jobseekers.

The Industry Transformation Map was designed to create 3,000 PMET (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) jobs by 2020.

Mr Singh also called for the Government to share more details about the Industry Transformation Map’s success, and asked for more details about how the effectiveness of the jobs-skills integrators would be measured.

On the topic of paternity leave, Mr Singh said he hopes small- and medium-sized enterprises would make adjustments to accommodate male employees taking paternity leave, and called for employers to hire mature workers with a view to making up for the temporary absence of younger staff.

He added that this is one of the reasons that he supported the extension of the Senior Employment Credit scheme — which provides wage offsets to those that hire senior workers — to 2025, and called for more support for employers to hire mature workers.

He also cautioned against having men excused from their National Service duties for the year their child is born, and said unit commanders should determine how best to accommodate this circumstance.

“If a unit is having a major exercise or conducting a critical operation, the needs of the Singapore Armed Forces or the Home Team agencies cannot and should never be compromised,” said Mr Singh.

One of the Budget’s moves will be to help middle-income Singaporeans save more for their retirement by increasing the Central Provident Fund (CPF) monthly income ceiling.

However, Mr Singh said it would be more appropriate for the Government to also reconsider adjusting the percentage of funds credited into the three CPF accounts, with a higher proportion allocated to the Special Account — which is meant for retirement and investments.

The other two are the Ordinary Account and MediSave Account.

“To achieve the Finance Minister’s policy intent of better retirement adequacy, a reduction — in the range of 1 to 2 per cent in the allocation to the Ordinary Account from one’s early years in favour of the higher-interest bearing Special Account, in step with the salary ceiling hike — would serve the retirement needs of Singaporeans better,” he said.

FURTHER CLARITY ABOUT HOUSING IN SINGAPORE

Noting that the House had debated motions on affordable and accessible housing on Feb 6 and 7, Mr Singh acknowledged that the Government intends to intensify its efforts on this topic.

However, he noted that one move in the Budget to provide higher CPF grants for resale flat buyers had sparked concerns about the higher grant’s impact on HDB prices — especially for larger flats and flats in popular areas.

This is because there is a possibility of home prices rising to match the new grants for eligible first-timers, and buyers bid more for a flat because the additional grant can increase the price they can afford to pay.

“Would they feed into higher prices and only make a future correction even sharper when the reality of lease decay for resale flats sets in?" he asked.

"I hope the minister can share the Government’s thinking behind this move and the assessment of its intended effects, particularly in view of 11 quarters of growth in HDB resale prices,” said Mr Singh, in reference to Finance Minister Lawrence Wong.

Beyond that, the Leader of the Opposition also asked Mr Wong, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, to provide more details about the difference between the valuation of land for public and private use.

Mr Singh specified that he hoped for the rationale behind the “market discount of up to 15 per cent of land allocated for Government Land Sales and Industrial Government Land Sales, and the sale of some private land even below this market price threshold” to be shared.

He said that the Government had earlier stated that HDB land not sold at market valuation would amount to a “raiding of the reserves”, and questioned if the sale of private land below market valuation is tantamount to raiding the reserves.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam had said in July 2021 in a written answer to a parliamentary question by WP MP Louis Chua that the reserve price for sites sold under the Government Land Sales and Industrial Government Land Sales is pegged to 85 per cent of the estimated market value of each site.

This takes into account the proposed land use and site-specific conditions, relevant land sale transactions as well as rental and sale transactions of completed buildings.

“The Reserve Price serves as an internal guide to assess if tender bids are reflective of the fair market value of the land being put up for sale,” said Mr Shanmugam at the time.

“Bids below the Reserve Price are not automatically ruled out; whether a site is awarded depends on the prevailing market conditions, number of independent bids received, and the specific circumstances of each site.”

Mr Singh also repeated the party’s call — first made by his predecessor Low Thia Khiang in 2017 — to establish a parliamentary budget office to scrutinise the Government’s Budget closely.

Ending his speech, he reiterated his call for Singapore to guard against the perception of two Singapores and added that “fiscal redistribution, better social protections and greater support for our most vulnerable Singaporeans must remain a mainstay of our future budgets”.

“It is imperative that policies should be continually refreshed and reviewed, including the applicability of the principles they were originally based on.”