MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1987 TO 31ST MARCH, 1988
Sir, I would first deal with the questions raised by the Member for Whampoa about the role of Singapore as a financial centre. Undoubtedly, the development of Tokyo and Australia will impact on Singapore because we are in the same time zone and in the same region. But there are pluses and minuses. On the one hand, Tokyo, being a large industrial state with a large capital pool, is likely to attract a number of banks to set up in Tokyo as their regional centre and this might pose serious competitive alternatives to Singapore. Undoubtedly that is a possibility. Also, the increase in the number of foreign banks now operating in Tokyo since their liberalization will attract talent away from Singapore. These are two clear negatives which work against us. Set against this, it is also true to say that there are some positive advantages to be gained from the growth of Tokyo as a financial centre in bringing more international business into our time zone. We have seen this spill-over effect in the very substantial increase in foreign exchange transactions in Singapore, particularly in Yen/US$ transactions. Currently, this amounts to some US$22 billion per day making us about half the size of New York and about the size of Tokyo, and one-quarter the size of London which is the largest. At the same time, there has been a substantial increase in the ACU markets as a result of activities of the Japanese banks and companies in Singapore. With the rising value of the Japanese yen, a number of Japanese companies are now moving overseas and locating in Singapore, and this brings with it banking activity. So long as Singapore maintains its competitiveness in terms of infrastructural facilities and telecommunications and we maintain our efficiency of operations, I think we will have a continuing role as a financial centre in the region. Also, we have to ensure that our fiscal regime is more hospitable than in either Tokyo or Australia, which is indeed the case. So I am not pessimistic about our continued role as a financial centre. Secondly, he has asked about the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar and its effect on the competitiveness of our exports. Exchange rate is not a simple problem. Ultimately, the exchange rate of a country's currency depends on a number of fundamental factors which include the political stability in the country, its balance of payments position, the growth of its economy, its inflation performance, the state of its fiscal balance, whether it runs a deficit or surplus, government's fiscal policy, whether it is contractionary or expansionary, the size of its foreign reserves, whether it needs to borrow money and therefore the debt burden, and so on. In a situation like Singapore where we do not have restraints on capital movements or foreign exchange controls, I believe the exchange rate is determined by the real economy, ie, by demand for our currency. The policy of the MAS in this respect is confined to managing the fluctuations of the Singapore dollar so that it does not fluctuate wildly and therefore undermining the growth of the economy and also to ensure that the inflationary effects of currency changes do not impact on the economy. I do not believe it is possible for a small country like Singapore, without any controls on financial flows, to be able to manipulate its currency effectively against fundamentals. You will note that up to the end of 1984, whilst our economy was growing strongly and Government policies were contractionary amd running consistent surpluses, our currency was very strong. This is consistent with the fundamentals. Since the end of 1984, the Singapore dollar, has depreciated steadily against a basket of currencies of our main trading partners, principally the countries of the EEC and Japan by about 30-40%. It has maintained its rough parity with the US dollar largely because the bulk of our trade, as the Member for Whampoa has quite correctly pointed out, is transacted in US dollars and also because the US is our largest trading partner. Therefore, the US dollar weighting on our exchange rate is very significant. Hence, the Singapore dollar tends to track the US dollar. It has strengthened a bit against the US dollar but I believe not sufficiently to affect our competitiveness. I understand the Member for Whampoa's concern but I think our biggest policeman in this respect is the Ministry of Trade and Industry who are constantly watching the exchange rate and have not been hesitant in making their views known to the MAS. At the moment, our currency is approximately at the right level and should respond to basic changes in our fundamentals. The Member for Leng Kee had asked questions on Government's participation in the economy and privatization. He has questioned whether, after divestment, Government- linked Companies (GLCs) will continue to be as efficient as they are now and on issues of management control. Indeed, these are matters of major concern to Government. I would like to restate the Government's privatization policy which is to withdraw gradually from involvement in private sector business. I emphasize the word "gradual" for a number of reasons. First, too rapid a privatization process will create indigestion in the stock market and will withdraw too much liquidity from the market leading to a depression of the economy. We certainly do not intend to do that. Secondly, perhaps of equal if not of greater importance, is the need to ensure an orderly transfer of management control so that companies which are divested do not collapse because of over-rapid removal of supporting management. By and large, therefore, we would prefer the route of partial privatization or privatization in stages to allow sufficient time for the transition to take place gradually. The GLCs, by and large, are run by full-time employees of the companies and I can see that when these are fully privatized the staff will simply be part of the new companies under private management. The Member has also asked what is the money going to be used for. Government has many uses for money. It could go into the Consolidated Fund to avoid the possibility of increasing taxes elsewhere! It could be used as seed money for new investment ventures which the private sector is unwilling or unable to enter into, for example, in the biotechnical field. In between, it will be invested wisely. There are many options available to Government and I can assure the Member that it will not be squandered. He has also asked a question on statutory boards; whether they will be allowed to retain sufficient surpluses for development. This will indeed be permitted and the Ministry of Finance will get together with statutory boards to determine their investment requirements over the long-term. Finally, he has raised a question on the management of foreign exchange by MAS. This indeed is happening. A number of statutory boards, like the MRT, have their foreign exchange requirements entirely managed by the MAS. The PUB also works with the MAS on foreign exchange transactions. Some statutory boards prefer to do it themselves but so far as I am aware they have not got themselves into serious difficulties. The MAS is always available to give advice. The Member for Boon Lay has raised the question of consumption tax. He has suggested that no new taxes should be introduced during a period of wage restraint. This is agreed to by Government. That is why we have not introduced any new taxes in this budget. I would make a general statement now because there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding over the intent of Government as far as consumption taxes are concerned. There seems to be a belief that the tax will be imposed on top of taxes we already have. For some perverse reason, Government is thought likely to do this. I have said that consumption taxes will only be introduced if it proves necessary and when we are convinced that there will be a permanent budget deficit direct taxes have been reduced to a level where revenue does not cover recurrent and other essential expenditures. To do otherwise would be silly, I thought. Also, if we should decide to introduce consumption tax, I can give the assurance that it will not be introduced in a way which will unfairly increase the burden on particular sectors, particularly the lower-income groups. Sufficient offsets will be found to ensure that the present distribution of tax is not unfairly shifted. I cannot give any specific assurances other than the general statement that whatever we do we will take into account the regressive effects. The Member for Ayer Rajah has asked whether adequate funds will be available for the new schools which my colleague, the Minister for Education, has indicated would be needed. I can assure the Member that I am fully in favour of expenditure for education and where the Ministry of Education can put together a good case, funds will be made available. The amount is very substantial - $750 million for 150 to 200 schools or thereabouts but phased over a 10-year period. We can afford it and if it is necessary we will spend it. The Member for Jalan Kayu has raised some of his usual questions which I will attempt to answer. He has said that generally the Government's policy on divestment does not seem to favour the small investor in Singapore or Singapore citizens and tends to favour the foreigner. That is not true. It may appear so on the surface but I will explain why. In the floating of shares, like the large capitalization shares of SIA, a certain proportion has to be reserved for foreign institutions as the nature of SIA's business is international. Therefore, it is important that foreign investors do have a stake in it as they will then tend, I hope, to support the airline. And equally important, they are price establishers. In other words, their participation in the flotation would tend to support the price which is good for the Singaporean who has the other shares. It would be wrong to make the categoric statement that all shares should always be initially offered only to Singaporeans with the residue distributed internationally because I do not think that necessarily is in the interest of the Singapore investor. Each case will have to be looked at on its merits. In the case of the two companies where he has said that there was an unfair distribution - RDC and SNP - I think the first point to note is that both these share issues were very small and, because they were very small, they were grossly oversubscribed. In a situation like that, it is rather difficult to make a distribution of shares which will satisfy everyone. We could issue small lots of one hundred shares, but I think that these odd lots will be very difficult to sell subsequently. Therefore, I am not sure it is such a good thing. In the case of RDC, CPF holders were allowed to use their funds because RDC is a trustee stock, and therefore, falls within the CPF usage guidelines. SNP is not a trustee stock, therefore it is disallowed. That was the reason. However, having made that general statement, I will take the Member's comments into consideraton and will commend to Temasek that the Member's views should be duly recognized in any future diversification flotations. The Member for Kampong Kembangan asked whether the Venture Capital Incentive Scheme has been successful. We do not know, which is a good thing because the scheme is only applicable when ventures fail and the investor needs to write it off against their other profits. The fact that we have not heard anything is probably a good sign. I think that covers all the points.