Defence budget = Budget to Upkeep Paper Generals and Papaya-linked GeeAlSees!
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Budgetary prudence: No sacred cow should be spared scrutiny
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Friday's article "SAF - the sharp end of deterrence" by Mr William Choong. The writer went to great lengths to reiterate the importance of a strong defence for Singapore. He is a student of military affairs and his stout advocacy for a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Total Defence is shared by most Singaporeans, me included.
Mr Choong alluded to rumblings among Singaporeans about defence spending and referred to a letter I wrote in January last year, "Examine the old sacred cow of defence spending", (Jan 27, 2007). In advocating defence spending, he recalled and disagreed with this extract of my letter: to re-examine defence spending to "generate savings and avoid tax increases". By doing so he had overlooked the key focus of my letter. Let me clarify.
The key focus of my letter was actually about examining the allocation of our Budget income to various Budget funding needs by exercising "budgetary prudence...(to) improve the coverage of social safety nets...mitigate worsening income disparity and prevent the emergence of an economic underclass". The government can add to the pot by transfers from reserves or increasing taxes, like the increase to 7 per cent goods and services tax (GST). Or, in reality, since 'money is not enough' it should also look for possible savings in some spending to reallocate. In Singapore's context, defence and home affairs together took up 48 per cent of the Budget and was an obvious candidate to examine for possible savings. Of course, the education budget at 25 per cent could also be examined. With deep inflation and a grim economic outlook worldwide, the urgency for budgetary management suggested 20 months ago has become even more pronounced. I hope that the process can be made transparent in parliamentary budget sessions and all ministers will advocate for their fair share of funding needs.
No particular need is absolute and exclusive, not even security or education. The business of government is ultimately for the people - their needs for security, health care, education, facilities and retirement. The job of allocating funds to meet all these needs prudently and judiciously is unenviable and the Government is best positioned to do it.
Only when that is accomplished can we say if spending to the full 5 per cent (or a higher) GDP limit is the right price to pay, relative to our national budget and to what our neighbouring countries and the rest of the world are spending. Quek Soo Beng
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Budgetary prudence: No sacred cow should be spared scrutiny
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Friday's article "SAF - the sharp end of deterrence" by Mr William Choong. The writer went to great lengths to reiterate the importance of a strong defence for Singapore. He is a student of military affairs and his stout advocacy for a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Total Defence is shared by most Singaporeans, me included.
Mr Choong alluded to rumblings among Singaporeans about defence spending and referred to a letter I wrote in January last year, "Examine the old sacred cow of defence spending", (Jan 27, 2007). In advocating defence spending, he recalled and disagreed with this extract of my letter: to re-examine defence spending to "generate savings and avoid tax increases". By doing so he had overlooked the key focus of my letter. Let me clarify.
The key focus of my letter was actually about examining the allocation of our Budget income to various Budget funding needs by exercising "budgetary prudence...(to) improve the coverage of social safety nets...mitigate worsening income disparity and prevent the emergence of an economic underclass". The government can add to the pot by transfers from reserves or increasing taxes, like the increase to 7 per cent goods and services tax (GST). Or, in reality, since 'money is not enough' it should also look for possible savings in some spending to reallocate. In Singapore's context, defence and home affairs together took up 48 per cent of the Budget and was an obvious candidate to examine for possible savings. Of course, the education budget at 25 per cent could also be examined. With deep inflation and a grim economic outlook worldwide, the urgency for budgetary management suggested 20 months ago has become even more pronounced. I hope that the process can be made transparent in parliamentary budget sessions and all ministers will advocate for their fair share of funding needs.
No particular need is absolute and exclusive, not even security or education. The business of government is ultimately for the people - their needs for security, health care, education, facilities and retirement. The job of allocating funds to meet all these needs prudently and judiciously is unenviable and the Government is best positioned to do it.
Only when that is accomplished can we say if spending to the full 5 per cent (or a higher) GDP limit is the right price to pay, relative to our national budget and to what our neighbouring countries and the rest of the world are spending. Quek Soo Beng
