National Neurosis

My parents were not rich but they did leave behind a bit of money; not enough to make each of us siblings rich but would surely have made their own lives more enjoyable if they had spent it. However my mum who held the family purse string was insecure about money and had also intended to leave a little bit of money as insurance for her children. So instead of spending on travel or some other luxuries they measured each item of expenditure on its neccesity etc. The habits or insecurity of their generation has passed on to us the baby boomers.

Reading an article in today's papers threw some light on what might have been a subtle indoctrination over the last half century or a collective neurosis if you will. First of all, do you know that unlike other countries like Hong Kong proceeds from land sales by the Singapore government goes directly into our reserves and is not considered as income for the year. This is despite the sale of freehold land as leasehold land of 99 years or 60 years and premium is collected from developers to extend land leases. At least some form of capital gain or revaluation gain can be considered as income. What is the significance of recognising it as income? This will impact the amount that can be allocated for social expenditure each year.

In addition the constitution states that only a maximum of 50% of net investment income from GIC, MAS and Temasek Holdings can be considered as government income. Most analysts that Business Times spoke to feel that the actual percentage considered as income hovers only around 30 to 40% of net returns of these institutions.

If you have missed the interesting interview ST journalist Susan Long had with the ex-GIC chief economist Yeoh Lam Keong in the article "Singapore's social policies are not future ready" here are some interesting extracts:

"He notes that the Government's spending, as a share of GDP, of around 17 per cent is among the lowest in the developed world, compared to 35-40 per cent in most OECD countries and 25-30 per cent in other advanced Asian economies.

'Our current levels of spending are low even by our own historical standards of up to 25 per cent of GDP seen in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. These are levels of a public spending we can afford to return to while maintaining competitiveness and long-term fiscal sustainability,' he says.

He applauds the Government's pledge announced by Health Minister Gan Kim Yong to double health-care expenditure from $4 billion to $8 billion in 2017, which will raise it from 1.5 per cent to 2.2 per cent of GDP. However, he points out, Taiwan was already spending 3.5 to 4 per cent of GDP on health care in 2001.

Notwithstanding the superiority of quality and efficiency of Singapore's health care, he asks: 'Is it enough for Singapore, which is steadily ageing, to spend half of Taiwan's 2001 budget in 2017?' "


Now you know what I mean when I talk about the national neurosis of perceived financial insecurity. It filters down to our parents and ourselves. At least my mum was not so paranoid as to view necessity as luxury. For the government however some form of psycho analysis is urgently called for when it can not see social obligations as neccesities.