Debated in Parliament on 8 May 2019.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance currently, how many citizens live in private properties but do not have any declared income.
Sir, of 2.7 million adult Singaporean citizens, about 6% or 164,000 live in private properties and do not declare income for the purposes of personal income tax in Singapore. They generally come under three groups: (a) they have no yearly income of any form; or (b) they do have income but that income is not taxable, including interest income or dividend income; or (c) they do have taxable income, but are not required to file tax returns as they are not subject to tax after taking into account their tax deductions and reliefs.
The 164,000 figure includes citizens who have access to other financial means. For example, those who have retired with private savings, and those who are receiving financial support from economically active family members.
We do not have further details of the financial situation of the 164,000 citizens, as we only collect information required for tax administration.
May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether we can take better care of this group of residents who stay in private property and whether we are able to assess whether this group of citizens who are without income, are they genuinely poor? I think we can do a little bit more for those who have no income rather than no taxable income. At the end of the day, at each Budget, we see benefits like GST Vouchers being given to those who stay in HDB flats who have income. But for those who are in private property, they do not reap the benefits. They do not even get the benefit of things like Digital TV Starter Kits and they definitely do not qualify for SC&CC rebates. I am just wondering whether the Government would want to review the policy to try to identify citizens who generally do not have income, staying in private property and who would reap benefits of some of these Budget provisions for them.
I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, the Government's concern is the same as his which is to make sure that all Singaporeans who are in need are taken care of. So, I think there are a few things. One, we have broad-based schemes and for broad-based schemes, you need to have fairly rough and ready proxy indicators. There may be some who do not fall within the broad-based schemes, and then, we have to see how we can assist those, look at the way in which we try to identify them, because we do not have the detailed, granular information. I would say about 80% are covered through our broad-based schemes like GST Vouchers, MediShield Life, CHAS, Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support and so on. I think the group that Mr Lim is talking about is those who live in private properties who have not declared their income. That is 164,000 out of the 2.7 million adults that I mentioned. And out of those, some actually may have financial resources, either because of savings or they may have non-taxable income by way of dividends or interest, or their children may be looking after them.
The challenge then becomes, out of that 164,000, how do you identify the ones who really may have no income at all and may need some assistance.
The way it is designed is for those to do so by application. And we do have broad-based schemes like the Pioneer Generation Package that applies to all, even those in private properties, and the upcoming Merdeka Generation Package. So, the ones who do not benefit from the broad-based schemes, we would encourage them to apply if in genuine need because the system does allow for appeals and consideration of particular circumstances.
Let me thank the Senior Minister of State. Oh, I beg your pardon! I thank the Minister. I do have residents who stay in private property. They have income from dividends or interest. But when they look at the Budget provisions and they see that they get nothing, whereas those who stay in 5-room flats, who earn more than them get the benefits of the Budget provisions. They really feel that this is inequitable; they too have done their part for the nation. They are disadvantaged purely because they live in a private property. So, they ask where is the equity of it all, because at the end of the day, they earn less than certain groups of people who earn more but living in 4- or 5-room flats. This group of people may be younger, earn more, and they get more from the Budget compared to them who are retired, living on interest income or dividend income.
I would not say that they are poor. But they feel that, "I too have done my part in building this country up". Can the Government not consider what they have contributed and give them more in terms of providing for them in the Budget? And I apologise once again, Minister.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure what I had done to the Member in my capacity as Senior Minister of State but that identity seems to remain very firmly fixed in his psyche; we shall try to see what we can do to dislodge that.
In the mean time, if I may address the specific question which the Member has raised. I can understand how some of his residents may feel. It may be too much of a generalisation, though, to say that there is nothing for them at all in the Budget. Because, for example, education is broad-based and it applies to even those who are in private property. In particular, we also have healthcare. So, for polyclinics and other healthcare services, these are also available to them. And not forgetting things like last year's SG Bonus. That would have gone to everybody, irrespective of the property that they were living in.
It is important to look at the specific social scheme. For the GST Vouchers, for example, the idea was really to offset for those who are lower income and have less means. That is the reason why it is structured such that you look at their income and you look at the type of property that they stay in. It is also not fair to be subsidising those who do have some means.
I will come back to the basic point which is that there are schemes which apply to all and residents in private properties without income will benefit from those. But they may have specific difficulties. We will address those on a case-by-case basis. The assurance we can give is that those genuinely in need will not be left without assistance.
In terms of recognition, it should not be forgotten that things like the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package were specifically designed to give recognition. Precisely because we recognised that these different groups have contributed to the nation, that is why those are not means-tested and are given to all.
PAPERCUTS