Advertisement
LettersWhy Singapore comparisons don’t work for Hong Kong’s Lantau Tomorrow Vision artificial island plan
- Singapore has met its housing needs through budget-friendly and environmentally sustainable means – East Lantau presents neither
2-MIN READ2-MIN
There are several key errors in Mr James Tam’s comparison of the fiscal positions of Hong Kong and Singapore, to burnish his and Our Hong Kong Foundation’s support for the reclamation off east Lantau over the next few decades (“Why the Lantau Tomorrow Vision is an investment in Hong Kong”, October 29).
Unlike Hong Kong, Singapore does not include revenue from land sales in its annual budget report. Instead, this income stream is treated as part of the tiny republic’s reserves for savings and investment – not expenditure and consumption – to make up for its lack of natural resources and a socio-economic hinterland.
If the Lion City had included land sales revenues in its budget statements, its average annual fiscal surpluses between 2007-2017 would surpass Hong Kong’s.
Advertisement
These surpluses would be even bigger if Singapore did not have to spend on big-ticket items such as defence and a significant public housing sector like its northern neighbour, notwithstanding the fact that its tax revenue base is also wider and deeper as a result of a more diversified economy and tax structure.
Advertisement
A seasoned global investment banker like Mr Tam ought to know this, as well as understand that Singapore’s current national “debt” of around 1.2 times its annual GDP correlated with its decision to bolster the development of its capital markets and financial sector via the issuance of sovereign bonds in the late 1990s.
Advertisement
Select Voice
Select Speed
1.00x