What should be the motivation for selling land in land scarce Singapore?

Food for thought:

In LAND SCARCE Singapore, should the sale of land be motivated by the NEED FOR LAND for development, or the NEED FOR CASH?

What should planners aim for when they sell land? Sell to ensure optimal use of land or sell the plot that raises more cash? 

Recurrent expenditure is an ongoing expenditure. Not a one-time expenditure. They include items like salaries, bonuses paid to staff, subsidies etc. 

The number of seniors age 65 and older will double from its numbers today to 900,000 by 2030.

Healthcare subsidies for each senior is more than 6 times that for a young person. 

One does not need a crystal ball to see that spending - just on subsidies alone - will go up substantially.

To sell land to fund recurrent expenditure means you need to keep selling land. 

Eventually your land bank is completely deleted. 

But you say land is leasehold? So what? You're going to wait for 99 years before you have land to sell to fund recurrent expenditure?

Some even made the meaningless argument that the Government can take back the land anytime they want. 

This is arguing for the sake of argument. So, sell land, take back because you have the power to do so, and then sell the land again?

Instead of using 20% of proceeds from land sale, it is not far better to put all of land proceeds back to the reserves to reinvest in a globally diversified portfolio and then use 50% of returns for spending. 

That 50% cap on NIRC is very fair.

It is evenly split between present Singaporeans and future Singaporeans. 

50% of returns is used for today's Singaporeans and 50% saved and invested for tomorrow's Singaporeans. 

Both groups are fairly and equally taken care of. 

Many of today's Singaporeans are also tomorrow's Singaporeans thus benefitting from the NIRC spent today and invested for tomorrow.