SINGAPORE — What is the Government’s capacity to spend, and to what extent should it change its spending philosophy that has served it so well over the past decades?

These were some of the questions raised by Members of Parliament (MPs) as the Budget debate kicked off yesterday.

Most of the 25 MPs who rose to speak lauded the S$9 billion Pioneer Generation Package — which will not be means-tested — as the right thing to do for seniors who helped build a newly-independent Singapore.

But the fact that the Government managed to pull off the “extraordinary feat” of financing the package without having to raise taxes — as West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC) MP Foo Mee Har put it — evoked contrasting views among the MPs on social spending.

Nominated MP Laurence Lien and Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng suggested that the Government can afford to spend more on healthcare and education and should perhaps stop sacrificing too much in the short-term to shore up resources for the long-term.

However, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Janil Puthucheary countered that free education entails a hefty tax burden on society. Do some Singaporeans — albeit with good intentions — feel that wages can go up even without increased productivity, and more subsidies and welfare can be dished out without due regard for how they are to be funded, questioned Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Alvin Yeo.

The issues raised yesterday ranged from the struggles of micro-enterprises, whether productivity grants were benefiting workers and whether the use of Medisave could be further liberalised.

Many praised the Pioneer Generation Package, which will cater to about 450,000 individuals born before 1950 and who became citizens before 1987, and which will be paid for via an S$8 billion fund set aside in this year’s Budget. This expenditure prompted Mr Seah to suggest a new model of Government spending with “less thinking, more funding”.

“Long-term thinking and planning do have their place,” he said. “For years, Singaporeans have been socialised to think long-term, tighten our belts, make sacrifices and defer consumption … but perhaps it is time to take in the counter-narrative. Let us not sacrifice too much for the long-term, and regret 50 years later, that we did not do the right thing at the right time.”

Mr Seah suggested that S$100 million, or 5 per cent of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth’s budget, be given to individuals who will spend the money well and carefully — a productivity and innovation grant of sorts for the people sector. He cited the case of Dr Tan Lai Yong, who spent 15 years treating the poor and training village doctors in Yunnan, China, and who now teaches at the National University of Singapore. As part of a course he teaches called Hidden Communities, Dr Tan treats migrants for free, takes his students to visit prostitutes in Geylang and to the Jurong fishing port, and works with children from broken homes. “This is a man I will give S$1 million to,” said Mr Seah, who called for a shift to a Government with a bigger role in funding, but a smaller one in deciding where the money should go.

Mr Lien said Singapore’s fiscal position shows the country can already afford to get social fundamentals right. It could halve the out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure of Singaporeans, make housing available for rental or purchase for all adult singles, and offer free basic education to those aged three to 18, he said.

But Mr Lien’s proposals were rejected by Dr Puthucheary, who said free education would not improve equality of opportunity. The Government is able to afford the Pioneer Generation Package because of values of that generation to put money away when times are good, he said.

Nee Soon GRC MP Lim Wee Kiak, meanwhile, observed that the Government has been spending more money than it collects in the past five years, and questioned if this was sustainable. There have been surpluses only because of the 50 per cent of net investment income from the national reserves annually, he said.

Mr Yeo also struck a sombre note in his speech. Many who wish for more benefits to be provided are motivated by genuine desire to help those in need, but these wishes require “a long hard look … to see if we can afford them and whether they take Singapore to where we want to go”. He added: “A dependence mindset where we expect some government agency to step in and take care of us — regardless of whether we can take care of ourselves — will lead ultimately to the breaking down of what has been built so far.” ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY JOY FANG