1 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) what evidence is available to determine if heated tobacco products will reduce the overall risk to both the smoking and non-smoking populations; and (b) whether HSA is assessing or has assessed heated tobacco products to decide this question.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Existing evidence suggests that heat-not-burn tobacco products are not significantly different from traditional cigarettes in terms of risk to both smokers and non-smokers.
HSA has also done preliminary tests on such products and found that the nicotine content is comparable to traditional cigarettes. Evidence from other countries suggests that heat-not-burn tobacco products are not significantly different from traditional cigarettes in terms of emissions.
While there have been claims that such tobacco products are less harmful than traditional cigarettes, these claims are made by the tobacco industry and, to date, there is very little independent evidence supporting such claims.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. Just a few supplementary questions. There would appear to be a scientific division of opinions on this question. For example, I believe the British Royal College of Physicians does believe that lower risk tobacco products can be a gateway to help smokers to move away from higher risk products, tobacco-based products which have tar, although I know there are some other bodies that disagree with it.
Would the Ministry consider two things: firstly, conducting a study to evaluate the health effects on users as well as on those in the surroundings, in terms of the passive smokers? Secondly, depending on the results of the study, would the Ministry consider perhaps a pilot or trial programme to allow only smokers who have registered, perhaps with the smoking cessation programme of the HPB, to have access to those products on a very limited basis − if the results of the study suggest that the positive effects outweigh the negative effects?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. First, let me say that there is no documented evidence of any safe level of tobacco use. I think that when people talk about the value of lower risk tobacco products for harm reduction, this is really debatable. The fact is that such so-called lower risk tobacco products are still harmful because it exposes the users to cancer-causing chemicals. As I have noted, HSA did some preliminary tests. There is no significant difference in the nicotine content between the heated tobacco products and the traditional products.
Our concern really is with the fact that allowing the use of such products could attract a much larger group of users, especially among the youths, and that could be the gateway to nicotine addiction and, eventually, smoking. We note the UK reports but despite reports from the UK, the experience of US is quite different. The US CDC has reported that e-cigarette use among high school students between 2011 and 2015 increased by more than 10 times, from 1.5% to 16%. The US Surgeon-General also reported that the use of e-cigarettes is closely associated with cigarette smoking among youths and young adults.
What we are doing is to adopt and aim for a very high and precautionary level of public health protection against known as well as potential harms of emerging tobacco products, including heat-not-burn tobacco products.
There is really no compelling reason or practical benefit in allowing such emerging products. For heat-not-burn tobacco products, there has been no claim by anyone that these can be used for smoking cessation. If indeed these were to be used for smoking cessation, then, these products would have to comply with the rigorous requirements, undergo rigorous scientific findings to make sure that they are safe and effective, just like the nicotine-replacement therapy that is approved under the Medicine Act. If they claim so, then, they need to show that these products are, indeed, safe and effective.
I do not think we want to do an experiment that will harm potential users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Doll Found on Tracks of Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the outcome of the investigation into the doll found on the tracks at Dhoby Ghaut station on 31 January this year; (b) whether this incident was the result of a security breach; and (c) if so, what measures are being taken to ensure similar incidents do not occur again.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan):\tMadam, LTA and the Police have investigated the incident. They found no evidence of a security breach. They drew this conclusion after reviewing CCTV footages and making physical checks of the possible track access points. One possible explanation is that the doll was accidentally dropped by a commuter through the platform gap and then picked up and placed on the tunnel wall by a worker.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tJust one supplementary question for the Minister. Has SMRT or LTA experienced such incidents before that may not have come to public attention and, if so, what is the frequency of that?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan:\tIf we are talking about identical incidents, then, this is the first time. But objects being dropped through the platform gaps, while not common, are not uncommon either.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Exposure to China's Belt and Road Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Prime Minister (a) what has Singapore's exposure been to China's One Belt, One Road initiative; and (b) what does the Ministry intend to do to mitigate downside risks, given continued and likely persistent slowdowns in Chinese capital outflow.
Mdm Speaker:\tWho is answering on behalf of the front bench?
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): My apologies, Mdm Speaker. Singapore welcomes China's Belt and Road initiative. It is a mutually beneficial initiative that will encourage further economic integration, infrastructural cooperation and people-to-people linkages among countries in the region.
As a result of the Belt and Road initiative, there is increased interest from Chinese corporates and financial institutions to invest in and participate in infrastructure projects in the region, including Singapore. For example, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's Singapore branch recently signed an MOU with Singapore Business Federation to extend up to RMB 50 billion in funding to Singapore companies for infrastructure projects across Asia. This, in turn, opens up opportunities for Singapore companies to partner Chinese players in Belt and Road projects in areas, such as transport and logistics, mixed-use park developments, construction materials and financing. Given that the Belt and Road is a relatively recent initiative, Singapore companies' direct engagements so far are not large but, I am sure will grow.
Capital outflow from China is a separate matter. It is not surprising that there should be a slowdown in such outflows as the Chinese authorities seek to maintain stability in their currency. The slowdown does not pose any material risk for the Singapore financial system or economy.
As China grows and becomes more integrated with the world, its capital outflows and investments abroad will likely grow steadily over the long term and the RMB will become more internationalised. Our cooperation with the Chinese authorities, monetary and financial regulators, fully recognises China's interest in ensuring that the journey is a stable and orderly one, and in guarding against sudden and excessive capital outflows.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the answers. I have two supplementary questions. We have read that the One Belt, One Road investments all over the world have encountered various externalities, risks, problems, such as corruption in certain countries, labour unrest, protest against land acquisition or against the use of Chinese labour at the expense of local labour; bureaucracy issues, such as what we have seen in the Chinese investments in developing mines in Congo. So, what is the Government's assessment and consideration of such risks and externalities and how will it intend to manage such downside risks?
The second question I would like to ask the Minister is: in the event that the Chinese investments which Singapore investors take part in lead to problems, such as mass protests or even abandonment of projects, how will Singapore be affected and what actions can be taken to mitigate such risks?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The two questions are related and not quite in line with the original question posed. If there are investments in Belt and Road initiatives – and we are really at a nascent stage of doing this the investments will not be made by the Government, but by private entities. They have to do their own calculations on the viability of the projects, whether they will succeed, whether they bring greater benefits to the region and the host country. They have to abide by local laws and abide by very high standards of governance expected of all our corporates that invest overseas.
The best way to manage such problems is to make sure they do not arise at all. And I am confident that Singapore, with our reputation and the conduct of our companies overseas, this is the standard they will maintain.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ex-offenders Hired in Civil Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Prime Minister how many ex-offenders have been hired by the Civil Service in each of the past five years and the Ministries or Statutory Boards in which they have been hired.
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, the Public Service does not track the number of ex-offenders employed. Indeed, since 2006, applicants who have had their criminal records spent need not include this information in their application. Recruitment is based on individual merit, where applicants who fit the job requirements most closely are hired.
Applicants who are ex-offenders can be appointed, with due regard given to the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, the time that has elapsed since their conviction, and the duties and responsibilities to be assumed. For example, we will understandably be more cautious in hiring ex-offenders for positions where an officer has authority over children.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proceedings on Estimates of Expenditure for FY2017/2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2017/2018 be taken till 9.00 pm on the days allotted to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates for FY 2017/2018. − [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [20 February 2017] (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.\" – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me the privilege of speaking in these Budget Debates. I think I speak for everyone in this House when I say that perhaps the best thing about this year's Budget Speech was to see it being delivered by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat. Welcome back, Sir!
I speak in support of the Government's Budget and its various initiatives that I believe are necessary in these uncertain times. They include: the promotion of digitalisation for Small and Medium Enterprises, the International Partnership Fund that encourages companies to internationalise, as well as the various public sector productivity funds that encourage innovation. These are all measures that will be crucial for businesses that need to dial up their innovation in the face of ever-faster disruptions arising from technological advances.
Mdm Speaker, while these are vital issues of concern for the livelihood of Singapore and Singaporeans, I would like to address an equally important matter: the social development of Singapore, in particular, graciousness. Or the increasing lack thereof.
Singaporeans want to be the best at whatever we do and strive hard to achieve this. It is that drive that has brought us this far and will take us further. But I wonder if this almost instinctive need to compete, to be the best, has come at the expense of graciousness, compassion and kindness. It seems to me that the more achievements and accolades we collect as a country, the harder we drive ourselves. It is a relentless drive for excellence that, in my view, has some Singaporeans climbing up the scale of increasing ungraciousness.
How else can we even begin to understand ungracious behaviour that has become everyday experiences? There are people who now drive against the flow of traffic on Singapore roads, block your way out of a lift or MRT train and complain about everything – from the noise that kids make playing football to harmless neighbourhood chickens that remind us of our kampongs.
And we must surely be one of the few countries in the world where a car indicator signal to change lanes almost always results in other drivers who speed up to prevent you from making that switch. We are not short on daily anecdotes of ungracious behaviour. We just seem to be short on patience, courtesy and kindness.
Ten years ago, in May 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave a speech at the 10th anniversary of the Singapore Kindness Movement. He said, and I quote, that our efforts to build a vibrant, global city \"will be in vain unless we complement them with social development, to build a Singapore with a heart. As we grow and globalise, the values of care, compassion and neighbourliness will become even more important.\"
Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans have been trying to be a kinder people − at least officially − for the past 20 years. I am not quite sure that we are succeeding. We have made tremendous achievements as a country along the political and economic fronts in those two decades. Can we say the same for our social development as a gracious society? Performance and graciousness are not mutually exclusive. Graciousness is a building block of a strong community and is as important as productivity, resilience and all those other qualities that define us as Singaporeans.
Research has shown, many times, that attention to the social development of a community results in deeper bonds, improved health and a culture of paying it forward. Key social values, such as graciousness, compassion and kindness will help address issues, such as the unity of our society, our attitudes toward the elderly and the development of our youth − all crucial factors in achieving the goals set out in Budget 2017. Let me explain how.
Unity as a people. Some in this House may find it surprising that I have never felt like a minority in Singapore. Yes, it is true, and it is not because I am delusional as I am fully aware that the Indians are a minority in Singapore. But the reason I have never felt like a minority is because of a life lesson I learned in an HDB lift when I was about five years old.
My mother had been walking me home from kindergarten to our 1-room rented flat in Margaret Drive. We lived on the seventh floor and had entered the lift to go up. The two middle-aged Chinese women in the lift immediately pinched their noses as soon as my mother and I entered the lift. I tugged at my mum's saree and wanted to know what was going on. She gave me a look that said \"Keep quiet and behave\", so I stayed silent. When we got out of the lift, I asked my mother why the women had pinched their noses. She said, \"Didn't you smell it, Ganesh? Someone had spilt something in the lift and it was very smelly.\" I insisted that there had been no such smell in the lift, to which she replied that it was probably because I had been hiding under her saree. I was a lot smaller back then.
That incident took place about 45 years ago and her graciousness in the face of deliberate prejudice taught me a life lesson I will never forget. It shaped my deep appreciation for diversity and understanding in Singapore. Consequently, my childhood was spent running in and out of my neighbours' flats along the common corridor. I grew up thinking we were all the same − it did not matter whether we were Malay, Indian, Chinese or Eurasian. And I suspect that a lot of us from that generation grew up in similar communities.
So, when the Government introduced the Elected Presidency Bill late last year, I had thought that most Singaporeans would, like me, share similar views. The ethnicity of the President does not matter to me as long as he or she is qualified for the role and deserved to be there. However, I soon realised after attending a few community dialogue sessions that the Singapore of today is very different from the one that I grew up in. I was shocked that the community that I belonged to had some serious and deep prejudices about sub-communities within the group, perceived divisions carved along the different dialects spoken. Let me clarify that these views are held by a very, very small portion of our society, but, even then, it is worrying.
The Government has made great progress in fostering unity in the community and continues to take the lead. But surely, the rest of the unity-building must be undertaken by members of the community. Parents must still be the main role models for children to learn about graciousness and understanding. Our young learn from us and it is vital now, more than ever, that we step up and behave in a manner befitting citizens of a proudly multi-racial society.
We live in an age where the world is becoming more polarised, and communities and countries are becoming more inward-looking. Singapore's strength and resilience as a nation has always centred on our multi-racial unity. This foundation will be crucial as the nation moves into the next phase of rapid development. We will welcome more and more new Singaporeans and friends of Singapore who will join us in our transition to the economy of the future. We will need to give them time to adapt and understand our norms and the values we hold dear. We will need to be gracious, compassionate and kind, as was my mother all those years ago. Because that is what Singaporeans do.
Mdm Speaker, another area that we need to pay special attention to is the way we treat our elderly workers. By 2030, one in every five Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. We are an ageing population and we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. While the Government has done a tremendous amount of work in drafting legislation and schemes that protect the rights of the elderly and promote re-employment, more can be done to ensure that the elderly remain as a core driving force of our economy. The challenge we see in industry is a worrying trend of employers who seem to favour the young because of lower wages. The logic behind this thinking is that, for a fraction of the cost, a young worker can actually take on a lot more than an older worker leading to a perception of increased productivity. That is not always the case. Let me illustrate this with a real example.
A few years ago when a local telco launched its digital television service, as with any new service, there were teething problems. On two separate occasions, rather young and inexperienced technicians were sent to my home. On both occasions, after several hours, the technicians could not resolve the problem. On the third try, I asked the telco to send someone a little more senior, someone with experience, to help resolve the matter. They sent me a senior gentleman in his early 60s. He sorted out the issue in less than 15 minutes and even gave me his personal handphone number so that I could call him if I encountered any further issues. This senior technician had about six months to go before retirement and wanted to continue working. Unfortunately, it was cheaper for the company to use external vendors for his position.
These attitudes are prevalent in other industries, too. In the local media industry, we see a diminishing representation of experienced anchors and veteran journalists. Newsrooms have become very young. On international cable networks, we watch Christiane Amanpour, Wolf Blitzer, Richard Quest and natural historian Sir David Attenborough − who is in his 90s now, many of us have followed them for decades. They have paid their dues and earned their credibility. When they give an opinion, it is backed by decades of experience and stories.
In Singapore, we seem to be losing experienced talent, both in front and behind the camera, as well as in print newsrooms. The common comment I get from international media colleagues is that the newsrooms in Singapore are very \"young\". While there is need for a balance in the composition of the newsrooms, I do wonder, as do many older Singaporeans, if we might have a better representation of experienced news anchors and journalists.
We may have an ageing population, but that does not mean that we should hide them away from public view. Instead, age, experience and credibility should be treasured, celebrated and embraced, somewhat like fine wine, and rewarded accordingly, particularly in this era of \"fake news\" and \"alternative reality\".
Mdm Speaker, teaching the value of graciousness must begin in the home, and be reinforced in the schools. Earlier this year, Minister for Education (Schools) Mr Ng Chee Meng spoke to The Straits Times about his journey in his life from fighter pilot to Cabinet Minister. There was one particular phrase the Minister used which caught my attention − and the attention of many others, too. He used the colloquial term \"chiong\", and urged students to \"dare to 'chiong'\". Loosely translated, what this means is to go after opportunities and to make the most of opportunities. Of course, the Minister explained at length that \"chionging\", and I quote, \"was about breaking boundaries, creating value and having that x-factor\".
Sadly though, we seem to have created a system of \"chiong kings\" − people who \"chiong\" at all costs − at the expense of important values like empathy, graciousness and compassion. For a lot of parents, \"chionging\" means winning at all costs. This is not a bad trait if children are also taught how to moderate the amount of \"chionging\" because what we want to hire in industry are people who are both independent workers and team players. The key to tempering this over-enthusiastic drive to be the best is for parents and schools to ensure an equal emphasis on graciousness and compassion. The signal must be sent that gracious and compassionate behaviour are as important as good grades and impressive CCAs, for it is these values that will ultimately guide them through their adulthood and careers.
Mdm Speaker, lastly, let me touch on gratitude. There is much that Singaporeans have to be thankful for. However, these days, thanks to social media, as a society, all we seem to be doing is to complain and criticise. Social media has created a community of self-styled \"experts\" in crisis management − individuals who seem to be waiting in the wings to freely offer their opinions on everything from politics to PR, from sports to poultry. While some of the commentary has been constructive, much has been conjecture and assumptions that are not necessarily based on facts. These opinions and comments are shared and repeated often enough on social media that they become the \"truth\" in the eyes of many. This is not constructive.
Take the recent example of the Singapore Armed Forces Terrex vehicles that were detained in Hong Kong. Social media was rife with callous and irresponsible conspiracy theories and conjecture. In my humble opinion, I felt that the Government's approach and handling of this delicate situation was spot on. I commend Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan and Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen for their gracious and measured approach on this issue. Quiet diplomacy was the key here. And after a few weeks, we got our tanks back, safe and sound.
Social media, of course, was rife with criticisms and even comparisons to governments of a bygone era, completely ignorant of the current state of geopolitics in the world. Much of the vitriol might have been predicated on an arrogance stemming from a history of accelerated development and success.
Instead, what we needed from social media was balance, a sense of gratitude and support for the way in which the Government dealt with the issue. It has become almost unfashionable to credit the Government on a job well done. It would be a shame if this self-defeating sentiment continues.
Mdm Speaker, my hope is that armchair critics and self-styled experts can learn to be constructive, not personal and abusive. Remember that the person you are criticising and abusing is someone's father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister. Put yourself in their shoes − how would you or your family feel if it were you who was being abused online, or your photo shared without reservation? In this fragmented, polarised world where \"alternative facts\" and \"fake news\" are celebrated and validated, it is all the more important that we work together to foster a more caring and inclusive society by exercising empathy and grace. Singaporeans have much to be thankful for and even more to look forward to the in future if we can embrace these virtues.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I support the measures outlined in the Government's Budget.
Mdm Speaker:\tThank you, Mr Rajaram. That was, indeed, a very insightful speech. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, when the Finance Minister delivered the Budget Statement last week, the announcement which grabbed the most attention was the increase in the price of water by 30%. Besides the quantum of the increase, what shook people were the suddenness of the announcement and the very short lead time from the announcement in February to its implementation in July.
Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources gave various reasons for the water hike. But these reasons are longstanding. The justifications, such as increased cost of production, the need to build more desalination plants and so on, did not come up suddenly.
For the last 17 years that the water price was unchanged, did it not cross the Government's mind before this year that it would want to raise the price of water? By contrast, there is a two-year lead time for the impending carbon tax, which the Government is announcing ahead of its implementation in 2019. This lead time is welcome, as it will enable businesses and consumers to prepare, such as by strategising and investing in energy-efficient measures.
Coming back to water, why was it not possible to prepare Singaporeans for the increase to take effect in July this year, with an announcement similarly two years ahead of time − in July 2015? Perhaps, July 2015 was not a good time to make such as announcement.
Madam, the other statement in the Budget speech which caused insecurity and unease was at paragraph E.18 − that as we invest more in healthcare and infrastructure, the Government would have to raise revenues through new taxes or raise tax rates. Few people would quarrel with the need to invest more in healthcare and infrastructure. Our healthcare system is still facing capacity shortages, as seen from the 20-hour waiting times for beds at certain public hospitals.
I understand that the waiting time at some hospitals providing Long-Term Acute Care are indefinite. As for infrastructure, Singaporeans will benefit from a more comprehensive rail network, which will hopefully ease traffic congestion and provide more efficient connectivity. One legitimate question to ask, however, is whether there is an effective mechanism to assess whether expenditure that has been incurred has been effective in achieving desired outcomes.
Take, for example, the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme (PIC) introduced in 2010. I believe the Government's intention was to design an inclusive scheme, with less red tape, which would be easy for businesses to access. I am aware that businesses are supportive of the PIC scheme, but for various reasons, not necessarily related to productivity. For example, in 2014, a post-Budget survey conducted by KPMG, 58% of the 80 senior executives surveyed admitted using the PIC to defray operating expenses, instead of using it to raise productivity.
Madam, I am not faulting the Government for its system design at the outset, as it may not be possible to foresee initially all the ways in which a scheme may be gamed or exploited. But now that the scheme has run for some years, how effective has the PIC scheme been in achieving its aim of boosting productivity? The PIC is a huge scheme, with the Government putting in billions of public funds. Do we know whether the results were worth the huge cost? As it turned out, millions of dollars were also sucked out of the system through fraudulent or dubious PIC claims.
What lessons have we learnt from this? We now read that the SkillsFuture Scheme launched just last year, has also been subject to a potential fraud of $2.2 million, already paid out. While I understand that designing a scheme is not a simple process, what lessons have we learnt in order to minimise such wastages of public funds?
This year, the Committee for the Future Economy (CFE) has come up with seven broad strategies to tackle the challenges ahead. Minister Iswaran took us on a tour on some of the key thrusts on Monday. We have also had such committees to review our economic strategies in the past. Have we had any review of what had worked in the past and what had not?
For instance, in 2010, we had the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC). The ESC had made recommendations to improve productivity which the Government accepted and implemented. The aim was to grow productivity by 2% to 3% per year over a decade, which should bring us to a 30% productivity increase by 2019. However, after seven years, productivity improvements are way off target and weak in domestically oriented sectors like retail and food & beverage. What lessons have we drawn from here? And can these lessons be applied to the CFE's strategies?
Madam, after the Budget Statement, several economic round-table discussions were held. Various economists expressed concern about fiscal sustainability. They called for greater accountability on the outcomes of public spending, which they thought was necessary before the need for additional revenues and new and higher taxes should be called for.
At the roundtable organised by the Economic Society of Singapore, SIM University economist, Dr Walter Theseira, made the following observation, \"Every few years, we have a big transformation package. We spend a few hundred million dollars here, a billion dollars there on different kinds of programmes, but we never really found out years later whether those programmes were any good or not.\"
Since the Government looks to the people to raise funds for such expenditures, public accounting of the outcomes of spending is warranted.
Madam, another issue that has been raised from time to time is whether the Government's revenue from land sales should be factored into the Budget as a source of revenue.
I raised this matter during the Budget debate 10 years ago and I am glad that other Members also see the pertinence of raising this question in this year's Budget debate. Economists have recently also revived this question in their current discussions on Singapore's fiscal sustainability.
At the time I made my speech 10 years ago, the revenue from land sales was in the region of $4 billion to $5 billion. Today, we see the revised land sales figure for this Financial Year to be $11.8 billion and the projection for the coming Financial Year to be $8.2 billion.
Tapping on land sales to fund annual Budgets is internationally accepted and practised by other governments. As our expenditures are expected to rise in the coming years, is it not reasonable to seriously think about utilising land sales revenue to fund the Budget? This will reduce the need to tax the people further.
Madam, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, few will quarrel with the need to spend more on areas, such as healthcare and public transport infrastructure. The legitimate questions being asked are whether we have done adequate reviews of past and current initiatives to weed out wasteful and ineffective expenditures. The other issue is whether we have completely recognised our sources of revenue. Doing so will help to ensure that we do not place unnecessary tax burdens on the people.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.
Today, I would like to touch on four topics. First, the need to maintain a strong defence budget in light of the growing tide of nationalism in countries around the world. Second, the need to support workers to transition from one type of career to an altogether different type of job scope on account of changing growth sectors in the economy. Next, the need to continue progressing on the path of social mobility and providing Singaporeans with opportunities and, finally, to accord strong support for the increased grants on resale HDB flats as they will provide young couples with the real possibility of owning a more affordable first property more quickly.
First, defence. It is heartening that, despite the challenging economic outlook, we are maintaining a strong defence budget.
Just a few weeks ago, Singapore was remembering the 75th Anniversary of the fall of Singapore into the hands of the Japanese. The pain that the Japanese Occupation brought to many is still fresh in the memories of our pioneer Singaporeans. Since the birth of Singapore as a sovereign nation, spending on defence has always been one of our top priorities. Defence planning continues to be important as the very existence of Singapore's sovereignty as a nation depends on it.
Thus far, Singapore has enjoyed exceptional defence relations with many countries. For instance, Singapore's forces have been able to train overseas in countries, such as Brunei, France, United States, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, Germany and in other skies and fields. This allows Singapore's forces to test their mettle and manoeuvres in a wider area − something that is difficult with Singapore's space constraints.
A key highlight last year was the signing of an enhanced deal with Australia for a piece of land to train 14,000 personnel for 18 weeks per year. Not only does this stand as testament to Singapore and Australia's close defence ties, but it also allows Singapore to have yet another terrain to train in.
We must regard the defence of Singapore as a priority. This means allocating a strong and healthy fiscal budget for defence. The recent growing tide of nationalism around the world provides a clear signal that Singapore and the Government must continue investing in the protection of our sovereignty. Therefore, in Parliament, we should continue to press for and secure a strong defence budget.
In Europe, there has been a rise in nationalism and anti-globalism. In France, Ms Marine Le Pen's nationalistic party is gaining popularity. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany party has increased in popularity in recent times and is reported to have attracted voters who are \"anti-establishment, anti-liberalisation, anti-European, anti-everything that has come to be regarded as the norm\". This is not an isolated movement, but one that has pockets of trends around the globe. Growing tides of nationalism across the globe must prompt Singapore to muscle up its defence capabilities to ensure our sovereignty.
In Singapore, there have been plans to enhance Lim Chu Kang for military training purposes. The plans for the new urban training facility include featuring high-rise buildings, complex road networks, an MRT station and a bus interchange. Simulation technology is also increasingly used in training. With such political climates around the world, such initiatives are timely and necessary. It is important that we maintain a strong defence budget, and I am heartened that we are doing so. We should maintain this even if we enter lean economic times.
Madam, my second topic is on employment. It is necessary to support workers to transition from one type of career to an altogether different type of job scope on account of changing growth sectors in the economy.
The employment market has changed significantly. Lucrative industries in the past no longer pay as much today. For instance, the oil, gas and marine industries in Singapore went through − and continue to go through − a very competitively tough environment. In fact, Keppel, one of the largest oil-rig builders in the world, cut its yard capacity − two overseas and three in Singapore. It had also cut 10,600 jobs from its Offshore and Marine division last year.
When industries slow down, ripple effects are felt across the economy, including the finance and banking sector. I have met with residents in the constituency I serve, who have, unfortunately, lost good paying jobs in the marine industry. Freelance or temporary contract work becomes options for them. Unfortunately, as a result, they face a large pay reduction and no CPF employer's contribution.
It is a tough position to be in. Therefore, the drive to assist these workers − from presently vulnerable industries, such as oil, gas and marine − to reskill and get employed in permanent jobs is key. This will allow the laid-off worker to chart his employment path in a more permanent second career instead of relying on temporary contract jobs to make ends meet. This allows the worker to plan longer term − in terms of the housing, educational and fiscal needs of his family.
This is why the Adapt and Grow Initiative, which has been enhanced to include Attach and Train, is key in the present economic climate. Under this enhancement, participants have \"opportunities for work attachments to improve prospects of employment.\" This is a win-win situation − employees pick up valuable on-the-job skills while employers see the potential employees' strengths in action.
To reduce the hindrances to reskilling, the focus will be on providing short, modular, e-learning opportunities to upskill and retrain. This increases the flexibility so that learning and upskilling becomes easier and more a part of life. Eventual consequence is more potential job openings for reskilled and resilient workers who seek to move from vulnerable industries to enterprises where the sun is rising.
I move to my third and penultimate point, Madam, that of social mobility.
Ensuring social mobility of Singaporeans is a precious ideal and a worthy aim − it is a constant work in progress. It is important for Singaporeans, and critical for a cohesive society, that all Singaporeans are presented with a wide menu of opportunities to excel. When in the constituency, I am so happy when I meet residents who decide to purchase a 2- or 3-room HDB flat instead of continuing to rent their flats at subsidised rentals from HDB. That is a classic example of social mobility − from non-ownership to home ownership. It is a considerably larger financial commitment but it is always good to see that with a steady income, CPF contributions and a HDB loan, residents decide to own their first major asset − a home. This is the Singapore way and we must preserve it, nurture it.
Education plays an important role in catalysing and fuelling social mobility. We need to continue to provide Singaporeans with opportunities, especially at an early stage of their lives. It is good that we start early with pre-school, providing affordable, accessible pre-school for children. This year, we are investing into increasing the infrastructure of our pre-school sector at an even earlier stage − infant care. This accommodates an increased demand for centre-based infant care. This helps ensure that Singaporeans, even at an early stage, are given a wholesome menu of opportunities allowing the potential for social mobility to commence early.
The emphasis on opportunities should continue and be prioritised throughout a student's schooling life. Therefore, it is good that the Budget this year provides for an increase in Post-Secondary Education Institution bursaries. To provide a wide a range of learning opportunities throughout a child's schooling life, MOE could help ensure the fair distribution of very good teachers across all schools.
Madam, the fourth and last topic I would like to talk about is the new grants for resale HDB flat purchases. This is an excellent move and one that is important to young couples who are planning to get married or wanting to start a family. For young couples commencing working life, a private property purchase can be very financially daunting. This new HDB resale grant provides young couples with the real possibility of owning a more affordable first property more quickly and quite possibly near their parents. This would mean that when the parents happily become grandparents, the precious and necessary support will be close by. So, there are many merits to these new resale grants.
Before I close, Madam, I would just like to share that I was in the House and had the opportunity to listen to the hon Ms Sylvia Lim's speech just moments ago. She seems to be supporting the Workers' Party position that it is good to not have carbon tax introduced so quickly, yet it is not good to introduce the tax on water quickly. I respect that she is entitled to her views but I am afraid, Madam, I cannot agree with those views.
Carbon tax and water are quite different. For carbon tax, the history was that once we ratify the Paris Agreement, we have to reaffirm commitment to address climate change and reduce emissions. It is actually quite a long runway in order to implement what we need to implement to honour the ratification. The issue of carbon tax affects all countries, not just Singapore, or not just Singapore and our immediate neighbours. In particular, small island states like ours, as part of the Agreement, Singapore has pledged to cut emission intensity by 36% below 2005 levels by 2030 and stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. So, it is a long runway, it is actually a 13-year runway. And carbon tax, there is an aim to implement it from 2019 and target industries and not consumers, in order to price -signal to incentivise industries to reduce emissions, and it will also help us to achieve our commitment to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement, do so efficiently and at as low a cost to the economy as possible. So, a long runway and we can be cautious in how we move ahead, and we have the freedom of time to decide these things.
Compare that with the situation of water. I think water, the Workers' Party's position is why is it so fast, why not take a little bit more time as you have done for carbon tax? Water is completely in a different pool, if I may say. There has been an increase in price as demand for water that cost more to produce increases. We need to value water, and technology has already been deployed for water and has already been invested in. Two-thirds of Singapore's land is for water catchment, with 17 reservoirs, and the desalination plants have to be increased.
And why the need for a rush? I think we have heard from both Minister Chan Chun Sing and also Minister Masagos that the Linggiu Dam is twice the size of Singapore, and we need many years to build the water level up again. We also need to take into account climate change.
So, to compare carbon tax on the one hand and having a long runway and say, \"Why are we not in a rush there?\", and to juxtapose, contrast or alienate water as a completely comparable commodity is not something that I can agree with. It would cost less than a dollar per day for 75% of businesses. For 1- to 2-room flats, we will not see an increase through U-Save.
So, while I listen to Ms Sylvia Lim's speech − I respect she can have a different view − I am not sure that the comparison between carbon tax and water is, indeed, a fair comparison.
Madam, in closing, I conclude by observing that we live in a rapidly-evolving world. As a country, we need to have the foresight to prepare for the future. But, we must also guard the fundamentals and should, therefore, maintain a strong defence budget so as to protect our country's sovereignty and overcome those who seek to do us harm.
Let us work together to protect and partner fellow Singaporeans who move from vulnerable industries to sun-rise enterprises. Let us ensure that a wide and wholesome menu of opportunities pervades our schools for the benefit of all students who turn up to learn every day. And let us assist younger Singaporeans to sink roots here, start their homes here and be part of a new band of Singapore pioneers. Budget 2017 advances these ideals and, therefore, merits our support.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tThank you, Madam. A clarification for the Member. I would like to thank him, first of all, for his explanation of our long runway for the carbon tax. But I think if he had listened to my speech carefully, the point I was making was that the reasons used by the Government to justify the water price increase have been there for quite some time. Unless he is trying to suggest that these factors only dawned on the Government recently and that is why they had no time to give Singaporeans more warning of the increase.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you, Madam, for the right of reply. That is not my understanding of what Ms Sylvia Lim said. I think Ms Sylvia Lim said, \"Look, on the one hand, you have a two-year runway or an X number of year runway for carbon tax. Why do we not just take a little bit more time for water?\" I have explained that they are completely different subjects. Carbon tax, we have got to look at how our commitment is corralled within an overarching Paris Agreement, and how it impacts all the members who have ratified that. Therefore, a longer runway is completely justifiable.
Versus a situation where we have had to deal with a situation where water is precious, it is a commodity, it is scarce and we have to act promptly. We are doing all we can in terms of the 17 reservoirs. The Linggiu Dam has been reported in Parliament to be twice the size of Singapore and has been depleted. So, rather than procrastinating about this, a swift move will also increase the value of water as being a precious commodity in the minds of Singaporeans.
In addition to that, where price increases are concerned, I think it is a dollar increase per day for 75% of the businesses and, with the U-Save rebate, the 1- and 2-room flats will not suffer a detriment. Even with the swift movement, there have been measures to ameliorate the possible rise in price.
Again, I go back to Ms Sylvia Lim's point. Ms Sylvia Lim's point was to compare carbon tax versus water. I think people in this House and people reviewing this debate will say that it is chalk and cheese.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, for this Budget, MOF has maintained our tradition of prudent public spending and I am glad to support it.
Although FY2017's primary deficit will be double last year's, we will still manage a surplus of $1.9 billion even after factoring in Special Transfers, thanks to the $14 billion contribution from our Net Investment Returns. This is good news.
This Budget has many good and targeted initiatives to support businesses, in response to the report by the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE). The Government's commitment to drive innovation is clear as we can see in the $500 million top-up to the National Research Fund and an additional $1 billion for the National Productivity Fund.
However, as we had just experienced our weakest economic growth rate since 2009 and the growth outlook is weak, many are waiting for the Government to share more details about how the economy will achieve the target growth of 2% to 3%. Where are the growth sectors in the immediate future? Notwithstanding, I must thank Minister Iswaran for his assurance to the House the day before. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Some residents told me that they could not understand the relevance of the CFE Report. Not everyone can be in the fields of engineering, information technology (IT) or artificial intelligence (AI). In fact, quite a number of residents feel stressed by the advance of disruptive technologies. They are totally at a loss about how to stay in the competition, never mind about staying ahead. They cannot keep up and cannot fill in the gaps in knowledge and skills. They are fearful, feel down and left out.
The Government can step up their efforts to share relatable success stories to motivate them, show them how others have adapted so that they do not have to worry or be fearful, share information about how people have managed transitions and, very importantly, how changes can benefit them.
Singaporeans must recognise that these changes are not threats but opportunities. The fundamentals do not change – for example, robots assist, not replace humans.
When residents heard about the initiatives, such as the acceleration of $700 million worth of infrastructure projects, they were heartened. These are concrete developments they can relate to. Hence, the Government should share more news about how it will pump up the economy and attract more investments. For example, the Government can highlight updates about how many more direct and indirect jobs will be generated by Changi Airport Terminal 4 and the other projects in progress.
(In English): We have to make a greater effort to focus on the tangible benefits for workers. Success stories about jobseekers benefiting from matches at our National Jobs Bank, our Career Support Programme, Professional Conversions Programme and the Work Trial Programme will also boost the morale of the unemployed and encourage them to enrol and persist in their training. Periodic updates about the new Attach and Train initiative should be shared in the media to raise awareness of its benefits.
Mdm Speaker, US President Donald Trump wanted to make America great again; Americans first. We must strive for \"a great Singapore: Singaporean is the most preferred choice\" for all employers, not only locally but internationally and wherever Singaporeans are.
The Singapore Government must continue to invest in all Singaporeans and make every Singaporean the best and most preferred person to employ and work with wherever Singaporeans are in the world. The world is our market and oyster.
The Internet has removed many geographical barriers to enable a global market. Hence, more local companies should think about tapping the bigger global market overseas through e-commerce. The number of people making purchases online is increasing exponentially and they do not care where the e-commerce websites are based.
Is it possible to compete with Amazon, or Tmall or Taobao? Yes, it is. Even though these sites seem to sell almost everything, there are many niche sites out there which are able to build their brands online and secure loyal customer bases.
However, even as we encourage our companies to venture overseas, the fact is that they are based here in Singapore and our high business cost structure is a problem. Some sectors, like construction, are heavily reliant on foreign workers. There are limits to how much innovation in construction can help assist to reduce costs. Would the Ministry reconsider deferring or staggering the foreign workers levy increase for all sectors and providing rental rebates to help SMEs offset higher utilities bills, compliance costs and the new carbon tax?
As HDB is a major developer, it can consider taking the lead in construction innovation as it is in a position to enjoy economies of scale. Would the Government share what innovative practices it will be engaging in and what would be the expected savings in terms of costs, manpower and time?
I recall meeting a foreign contractor recently and checking with him how the contractor competed in the market. I was particularly struck by the fact that the company was not reliant on the relatively cheaper unskilled labour for their competitive advantage. He shared a good example. A good, experienced, skilled and productive plasterer could produce four times more than an unskilled labourer even though he may be one and a half times more expensive than the unskilled labourer. In addition, the company could save on unnecessary hidden and unforeseen costs, such as wastage and material costs ,if the job needs to be reworked or improved. He shared that, in conclusion, cheap is not necessary good, and increased productivity is relatively important in ensuring the competitive advantage.
Another topic which features prominently for this Budget is the 30% hike in the water price. I do share the concern of Singaporeans over the price hike and worry about the impact on the cost of living and business costs. Even until today, people do still laugh at us for drinking \"long kang\" water. Putting aside such remarks, businesses that I spoke to shared that the consequences of not having reliable and sustainable water solutions are far-reaching. If not solved, it might be worse, and we might lose businesses and investors. Imagine, if we do not have such alternatives, what would be the price Singaporeans would have to pay in the future?
A few months ago, there was an interesting article by Channel NewsAsia. It shared that Singapore consumers spent about $134 million on still bottled water in 2015, up 25% from five years ago. A 60 ml bottle of drinking water usually retails for about 50 cents to about $1 in the supermarket. For the same amount of tap water, PUB reported it would cost only 0.1 cents, not even 1 cent. This makes it 500 to 1,000 times cheaper than the bottled water. It made me puzzled and I could not reconcile it.
I certainly support our move to become even more self-reliant in our water supply through the use of the latest technology. While the cost increase cannot be avoided due to the huge investments required, more efforts should be made to continue to increase the sources of water supply and the use of technology that can help reduce the cost of water production. We should continually remind Singaporeans of the importance of conserving water. On this note, may I know whether the Ministry will consider opening up the water supply sector to more private players to set up more plants to increase competition?
We should have more dialogues and discussions about how to motivate Singaporeans to save water. In short, I believe in incentivising rather than having penalties in promoting water conservation.
May I recommend that we look more closely at how other countries conserve water? For example, in Hong Kong, every household is served by two water pipes − one for potable water and one for non-potable water. In some areas in Japan, it is common for the toilets to be designed in such a way that used water from wash basins are fed to the flush tanks.
I am also heartened to note that the Singapore Government has increased the grants for Singaporeans to buy resale flats so that they can live near their parents or working area. However, we need to be mindful and remain cautious, and monitor whether such additional grants may end up pushing up the prices of resale flats. Also, with these grants, resale flats are becoming more attractive. Will the Ministry share if the prices between BTO and resale flats are narrowing?
I am heartened by the announcement that more flats may be built to shorten the waiting time for BTO flat applicants. My residents have given me positive feedback on this. Will HDB consider increasing the allocation for new BTO flat upgraders or second-timers slightly, cautiously, moderately? These owners will, in turn, release more resale flats into the market for young couples looking for this option.
Finally, I would like to conclude with my thanks and appreciation for the extension of the Additional Special Employment Credit. This is something I have been hoping for as I think it is effective in incentivising companies to retain our older workers and help them stay employed. We should also remind companies that the Government is continuing to support them through ongoing schemes, such as the Wage Credit Scheme and the Special Employment Credit scheme. These are not small amounts, totalling $900 million. Mdm Speaker, with that, I support the Budget.
Mdm Speaker:\tMinister Heng.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, I thank Members for their thoughtful views in the Budget Debate. I also appreciate the diversity of opinions from economists and journalists; and heartfelt feedback from Singaporeans and business owners. The more specific issues that Members have raised will be taken up by my Ministerial colleagues during the Committee of Supply (COS).
As Mr Liang Eng Hwa observed, the Budget is not an occasion where there will always be many \"tasty goodies\". Rather, it is an opportunity for the Government to set out our plans and priorities to work with our people and businesses to bring Singapore forward.
Last year, the economy grew by 2%. It is within the range of 2% to 3% as set out in the CFE report, and is comparable to the performance of many other high income economies. In the US, Switzerland and Germany for example, their economies have been growing at about 1% to 2% yearly on average in the last five years.
We also remain an attractive investment destination globally. In 2016, we climbed to fifth position for FDI inflows in a difficult international environment. I think it is a good vote of confidence for Singapore.
Our demographics are changing. Our labour force growth is slowing down because of smaller cohorts entering the workforce and a slowdown in foreign worker inflow. To counter this, future growth has to come from sustained productivity growth. We need to help every worker maximise his potential, and support our businesses in innovation. This will put us in good company among high-income, productive economies.
Winds of change are also sweeping across the world. Many of the favourable conditions that buoyed our growth over the past few decades are now under threat. Protectionism is on the rise. Global trade and production patterns are shifting. New technology arrives in waves, sometimes with disruptive consequences.
Unlike the 2009 Global Financial Crisis or the 1985 recession, we are not in a crisis. Nevertheless, the changes we are facing have far-reaching implications. The best way to address them is to meet them head-on.
I understand that this is not easy. Many Members, including Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, have spoken about the pressures on our businesses, especially SMEs, in a time of restructuring.
Notwithstanding the 2% growth in 2016, we recognise that the economy and labour market exhibited uneven performances across different sectors. Some sectors did well and could not fill vacancies. Others faced cyclical weaknesses. Yet others had to relook their business models due to more fundamental changes in their sector.
We recognise that some businesses are facing cost pressures. But we must also recognise that in a functioning economy, cost pressures serve as price signals, so that resources can be channelled into the most productive use. We must be careful not to hamper this process. An across-the-board stimulus would not be effective as it may further push up cost pressures.
So, we monitor the situation closely and calibrate the fiscal stance accordingly. The Budget this year strikes a careful balance between reinforcing restructuring efforts and providing support to businesses and households. Against the current macroeconomic backdrop, the slightly expansionary fiscal stance is appropriate.
There are many Government schemes, as Minister Iswaran pointed out, that benefit businesses. For example, the near-term support measures mentioned in this year's Budget total up to $1.4 billion. These include the existing Wage Credit Scheme and Special Employment Credit, along with enhancements to the Corporate Income Tax Rebate and the Additional Special Employment Credit; $1.4 billion is not a trivial amount. These are on top of the substantial stimulus measures introduced in the last three to four years, of which their cumulative effects are still working through the economy.
So, the Government is providing support, and Minister Iswaran has given a very comprehensive explanation of the range of support from the Government for businesses, especially SMEs.
Indeed, different firms and different sectors face varying challenges and opportunities and will require different solutions. We are thus giving more targeted and customised help. For firms that are ready to internationalise, we are providing more help to scale up and go abroad. The most recent examples are the enhanced Internationalisation Finance Scheme and the new International Partnership Fund. For firms that are ready to upgrade their capabilities, they can tap on the Capability Development Grant in a wide range of areas, from raising service standards to adopting technology and staff training.
There are also firms in sectors, such as retail, which are facing structural challenges. The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs)are the platform for individual companies to work together with agencies, unions, trade associations and others to restructure, to stay competitive in the new environment. For those facing cyclical weakness, such as the marine and process sectors, we are deferring foreign worker levy increases. We are also accelerating public sector infrastructure projects to support the construction sector.
This is what in Chinese is called \"对症下药\", or giving the right medicine to cure the ailment. A painkiller may work for a while to dull the pain, but it masks the underlying problem and delays needed action, or, in Chinese, \"治标不治本\".
We are providing near-term relief, but we do not want to provide only temporary relief. We want to help our businesses build deep capabilities that will enable them to adapt to a fast-changing world and seize new opportunities where they arise. And this is the key to continued success.
Mdm Speaker, may I say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank various Members for their suggestions on how to help businesses overcome challenges. We understand that many companies have been affected by the slowing economy and are hoping for the Government to come up with some near-term measures to give them a helping hand.
In reality, different companies and industries face varying challenges and opportunities. Therefore, the measures introduced by the Government must be targeted. We have provided some near-term measures to help them, but these are like painkillers; they provide temporary relief but do not address the root of the problem, so it is best not to take them too much.
The key is to help companies upskill and enhance their capabilities, to get to the root of the problem and build themselves up. We urge leaders of trade associations and chambers to continue to work closely with the Government and to take the lead in bringing about transformation and innovation amongst their member companies. Only then will companies be able to maintain their competitive edge, seize new business opportunities and succeed in the ever-changing environment.
(In English): Let me now touch on building our future economy. When the Prime Minister announced that we will form the CFE, he said, and I quote, \"With an ageing population and uncertain global conditions, growth will be harder to come by. Yet, our economy must grow to create opportunities for Singaporeans and to improve our lives.\" And, indeed, this is what guides us in the CFE work − to create opportunities for Singaporeans and to improve our lives. We live in a world undergoing major and rapid structural changes. Shifts in global trade and production patterns are opening up new markets, even as parts of the world appear to be moving towards greater protectionism. Advances in technology, in particular, digital technology, give us new ways to improve productivity, efficiency and service delivery. These trends may throw up potential disruptions, but they also bring many new opportunities.
To seize these opportunities, our businesses and our people need to build deep capabilities. Only with deep capabilities can we thrive in an unpredictable and fast-changing world. Our businesses need to digitalise, innovate and internationalise, to create value and bring it to the world. Our people need to continuously learn and re-learn skills, to be entrepreneurial and flexible in adapting to varying circumstances.
All these are brought together in the CFE's recommendations. Of the CFE's seven key strategies, the first five are about building the very capabilities that I have described − to internationalise, to develop and use deep skills, to innovate and scale up, to digitalise, and to make the most of our city. These five are brought together by two other strategies: through the ITMs and through effective partnerships.
These seven strategies are mutually-reinforcing. It is not about different people pulling in different directions. Instead, we need a sense of partnership and collaboration, to work together for economic development and in all areas. Taken together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The way in which the CFE strategies can be brought to life is through two critical elements. First, we need a spirit of enterprise, a willingness to try new things, to seek creative solutions to problems, to venture where few others have gone; an attitude of continually striving, of persevering, of drawing out the best ideas from every individual.
Second, effective partnerships with one another − between the Government, the community, businesses and individuals. Together, we will refine our ideas and put them into action. By working together and making the most of everyone's abilities, we can achieve more than we will on our own.
To those who are looking for a new blueprint and a plan to follow, let me say that what we need is not a change in strategy, but a strategy for change. We must recognise that we are in a different world. The world is changing, but we do not know for certain the pace and direction of change. Many Members, such as Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Muhamad Faisal, have also noted this uncertainty. What we need is not a cast-in-stone roadmap, but a spirit to constantly forge forward and to find a new way forward.
This strategy for change requires a significant shift in mindset. The CFE strategies are part of a broader movement to develop a pervasive culture of innovation, nimbleness and adaptability. This will not take place overnight and Budget 2017 is but a step in that direction and builds on what the CFE has put forward.
This is a Budget to position us for the future. This is about doing, learning and adapting. We cannot afford to wait and see. Those who wait will only miss out. As Ms Chia Yong Yong has shared, it is time for us to take our own future into our hands.
Structurally, we have always faced constraints as a small nation-state. But our strength, our enduring strength, has been to break through all of these constraints. We have proven to the world that we can do this time and time again.
We are on a journey of transformation together, where success is not an endpoint but an ongoing process of change, as Assoc Prof Randolph Tan put it.
I am confident that we will succeed, as one people, on this journey of change. I am confident because I see many positive examples of people, of firms, that have embraced the spirit of enterprise and partnership. So, let me first talk about our people.
Our people must be willing to go beyond the familiar and explore new prospects. For example, as Mr Ong Teng Koon, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Kok Heng Leun noted, with rapid changes in technology and business models, job roles will be redefined more often, and new skills will frequently be required. Given these trends, Members like Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Patrick Tay have expressed concerns about how Singaporeans can adapt.
To thrive in such an environment, we need to continuously upgrade our skills and keep them relevant. In some cases, we will have to go beyond the job scopes that we are familiar with and try something different. We can use the knowledge, strengths and personal interests that we have developed to contribute in a different way. Here are some examples. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I display some slides and photos on the screens?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [Slides and photos were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: This is Chandra. Chandra used to be a network engineer in a bank. In 2008, he was retrenched but he persevered and found a network engineer job in a telco. Similar skills, in different sectors. It was in his new job that Chandra got exposed to a very interesting and growing new field of work with good opportunities: cybersecurity. So, he started to look seriously into this. He took up on-the-job training through the Cyber Security Associates and Technologists Programme under the TechSkills Accelerator. Now, he has taken up a new job in cybersecurity.
This is Yvonne. Yvonne has done different things in her career, including working in the financial sector and helping with her family business. But throughout, she knew that her passion is working with children. So, she exited senior management positions at mid-career to enter a completely new area by joining the Professional Conversion Programme for Pre-school Teachers. Through this programme, she is currently taking the WSQ Professional Diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education and working as an assistant teacher in a childcare centre. Upon completion of the PCP this April, she will take on the role of a pre-school teacher.
So, one way we can explore new opportunities is by going beyond our current job roles. Another is to go beyond our geographical borders and venture into different markets.
I was interested to hear Amirul's story. Amirul was the first Singaporean Malay student to participate in the NUS Overseas College in Beijing. He did an internship there with Traintracks.io, a data analytics startup. Despite not knowing much Chinese, Amirul had such a positive experience in Beijing that when he returned to Singapore, he joined the local startup scene, working full time at F&B tech startup Oddle after graduation. He is currently the company's Digital Marketing Lead, introducing the company's solutions to the Southeast Asian and US markets.
Indeed, I share Mr Gan Thiam Poh's objective of helping Singaporeans to be great in what they do. Chandra, Yvonne and Amirul exemplify the spirit of enterprise we need to flourish in today's economy. So, I urge all Singaporeans to be bold and proactive like them, to go beyond the immediate confines of what we are used to and find new prospects in different places.
To do this, Singaporeans can tap on a wide range of support measures, from SkillsFuture Credit and subsidies for training courses, to Adapt and Grow initiatives that can help with job placements and attachments. The Global Innovation Alliance will also give our young people more overseas exposure, especially to exciting startups with good ideas. At the same time, in supporting our people to try new areas and learn new skills, we will also pay careful attention to those who may be more vulnerable:
As Mr Zainal Sapari has noted, it is important to take care of the needs of lower-wage workers. The Workfare scheme provides them with income supplements and training support. This tops up their wages as they upgrade themselves with new skills. The Wage Credit Scheme has also supported businesses in sharing productivity gains with workers through wage increases.
In addition, we share Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ong Teng Koon's concerns for freelance workers, and are looking into how we can work with our tripartite partners to support them better. The Minister for Manpower will say more on this at the COS.
Having spoken about our people, let me now talk about our businesses. Like our people, our businesses must have the courage to adapt and try new ideas. Often, we can tap on the expertise we already have to create new value for others. I am encouraged by the progress that many of our local firms have made.
Many of us use radio frequency identification (RFID) tags every day − when we check out library books or tap our EZ-Link cards. Tunity Technologies, in collaboration with A*STAR's SIMTech, applied this technology to something unexpected − food trays. Customers make a $1 deposit to borrow a tray and they get their deposit back when they return their tray to an automated system, which detects the returned tray using RFID technology. This encourages customers to return their trays after use and allows the cleaning staff at a food centre to concentrate on other more productive tasks. An innovative solution to an old problem!
Matex International Ltd is a specialty chemicals company that has adapted to enter a new area of business. With the help of Intellectual Property Intermediary, a SPRING affiliate, Matex licensed a specific advanced membrane technology from NUS to help it develop capabilities to treat its own waste. Subsequently, Matex combined this technology with its own in-house knowledge to create customised ways to remove particles from waste water more efficiently. This allowed Matex to move beyond being a specialty chemical manufacturer to also offer industrial waste water treatment solutions. It could have stopped with solving its own problem, but Matex took its solution, asked themselves who else would find it useful and opened up new business opportunities.
These are good examples of creating value. In addition, our businesses stand to gain when they bring these ideas into new markets. To do this, we should develop stronger in-market presence to gain insights about consumers' needs and preferences in foreign markets, so that we can tailor our products and services accordingly. As Mr Lee Yi Shyan put it, we need to develop a \"deep awareness of the world\".
We should also be willing to explore new destinations, especially those places where few others have gone. We can contribute most in these places. This is about improving our businesses, as much as it is about contributing to the world.
Ninja Van has brought innovative technologies to the logistics industry. For example, businesses on the Ninja Cloud platform can make use of spare capacity on other fleets in real time. In addition, Ninja Van has managed to expand its presence into regional markets like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines and Thailand. It did this with some help from IE Singapore, which helped Ninja Van to understand and navigate in-market conditions and build up overseas market operations.
Our businesses need to develop a strong spirit of enterprise by innovating to create new value and internationalising to bring this value to new markets. They can tap on a range of support measures for these efforts. For example, businesses that wish to innovate can tap on measures like A*STAR's Operation and Technology Road-mapping, Headstart and Tech Access initiatives.
Even as our people and our businesses adopt a greater spirit of enterprise, we must all work together in close partnership, as Mr Darryl David and Dr Tan Wu Meng pointed out. We each have different strengths and, when we work together, we can achieve more. This is why one key CFE strategy is to use the ITMs to bring industry partners, trade associations, unions and public agencies in a movement for economic transformation.
Many Members, including Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Foo Mee Har, have expressed support for the ITMs and I thank them for their support.
As Mr Heng Chee How pointed out, these ITMs must be dynamic plans, which will be updated even as they are carried out. And as Mr Henry Kwek noted, the key is in getting things done − how the different partners can work together to drive industry development.
After the Budget, one economist asked me, \"Is the Government really the right party to drive the ITMs?\" It was an indirect way of saying: does the Government really have the business experience to say what should be done to restructure each sector? My answer? He is right. The Government cannot, on its own, design plans for the tens of thousands of firms across different industries. This is just not possible, nor is it what we want to do. Miss Cheryl Chan has expressed similar sentiments.
What the Government can do is to catalyse and bring stakeholders together. This is what we seek to do with the ITMs. The ITMs are a joint effort among all partners in an industry. What the Government will do is to catalyse action through ITMs. We can provide a platform for different partners to share ideas; we can help to facilitate change, for example, by reviewing regulations where appropriate. But, ultimately, the ITMs need to be driven by the industry with strong participation. The quality of the ITMs will depend on the quality of inputs from industries and partners and how well we work together for the larger good.
I hope that entrepreneurs, businesses and trade associations will take the lead in developing and implementing the ITMs. We need everyone to contribute actively, to work together to get things done, in order for the ITMs to succeed. So, I am glad to hear Mr Thomas Chua's call for companies and TACs to play a more proactive role in industry development. Indeed, our TACs must play a leadership role to galvanise companies to seize opportunities and embark on the challenging but fulfilling journey of transformation. In this environment of rapid change, when individual companies may be uncertain about how to proceed or how best to tap on available Government support, this is a great service that TACs can perform for their members. Unless we have strong leadership among our partners in the ITMs, the ITMs cannot take off.
I am also encouraged to learn that even before all 23 ITMs have been launched, we are already seeing good collaborative work among different industry partners. For example, to raise the standard of pharmaceutical handling in Singapore, Changi Airport Group has partnered the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and Workforce Singapore, to build a community of companies certified by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in pharmaceutical handling. Companies involved include both ground handlers at Changi, as well as Singapore Airlines Cargo and four freight forwarders. These companies from across the air cargo supply chain will undergo training and have their processes and facilities accredited by IATA. This will help to attract global demand for these services, thus boosting the growth of the airfreight, logistics and pharmaceutical industries in Singapore ‒ a good example of cross-industry collaboration.
Another example of partnership involves local firm, V-Key Pte Ltd. V-Key has developed a patented virtual secure element which makes mobile phone applications and transactions secure, and serves more than 30 million banking and e-commerce users across Southeast Asia, India and China. To develop more digital talent and nurture future digital leaders, V-Key has partnered our Institutes of Higher Learning and local banks, to enable selected students in infocomm to complete multiple structured internships with V-Key over the course of their studies. Students can gain valuable industry experience, and those who perform well are offered a permanent job at V-Key. V-Key ends up hiring about 50% of its interns. Such programmes benefit both the student and the employer.
The TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA), which was launched last year to develop talents for the infocomm sector, brings together trade associations like the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF), NTUC representatives and Government agencies like the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). One of TeSA's initiatives is the Company-Led Training Programme which allows individuals to deepen their ICT skills through on-the-job training hosted by various companies. So far, the job placement rate has been high for this programme.
We should encourage joint efforts like these. On our part, the Government will support the needs of our people and businesses, so that they can achieve their full potential.
For example, we will create a regulatory environment that both supports innovation and manages risks. It is a balance. We need not regulate everything down to the last detail for fear that we will expose our society to risks. Instead, we should stretch our thinking and come up with ways to encourage enterprise growth, while still mitigating risks to an acceptable level. As I mentioned in the Budget Speech, agencies like MAS, LTA and HSA are already moving in this direction.
The seven strategies of the CFE are mutually reinforcing. It is important that we pursue this with a spirit of enterprise and partnership. Only then can we come together to transform our economy and succeed in a more unpredictable and fast-changing world. Rather than following a blueprint, this is a journey of doing, learning and adapting. I am excited for what we will achieve together.
Let me now turn to the environment. We have had a lively debate in this House on this Budget's measures for protecting the environment. Many who spoke expressed support even as others pointed out the impact on households and businesses. In particular, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms K Thanaletchimi, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Png Eng Huat raised concerns about costs. There will be some costs, but also assistance measures. These should be debated, but at the end of the day, as Minister Chan Chun Sing said, the Government needs to be responsible in taking care of not only the short-term needs but also address future challenges.
We must also change our mindsets and habits, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah pointed out when she suggested the need to reduce consumption and to be more conscious about recycling. And indeed, everyone has a part to play − from parents teaching our children conservation, to volunteers picking up litter in our waterways and parks, and firms adopting green technology.
Let me touch on water pricing. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources addressed Members' questions yesterday. I shall reiterate a few key principles and say more about the Government's additional investments in the water system.
Water sufficiency is a matter of national survival. Members are well aware of how Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our Founding Prime Minister, obsessed over water since the Separation Agreement. Securing a sustainable water supply for Singapore has been an all-consuming pursuit of the Government since Independence. We lodged our water agreements with the United Nations, invested in a strong defence force and developed strong capabilities in water technologies.
Singaporeans have enjoyed uninterrupted and high-quality drinking water through rainy weather and droughts alike. This is not mere good fortune or our birth-right. Rather, it is the result of long-term planning, a can-do attitude, innovation and sound policy.
As the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources explained, the cornerstone of our water policy is the pricing of water on sound economic principles to reflect its long-run marginal cost (LRMC). This reflects the cost of supplying the next available drop of water, which is likely to come from NEWater and desalination plants. This ensures that users will conserve water and we can make timely investments in the water system.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked why raise the water price now and carbon tax later. The carbon tax is new and the details will have to be carefully studied. But I think a more fundamental point is whether Ms Lim agrees that water is of strategic significance and we should each do our part.
Mr Seah Kian Peng highlighted yesterday that the Government spends more than it collects on the water system. This is, indeed, the case. The revenue which PUB collects from users is only enough to cover operations and the depreciation of waterworks, pipelines and water reclamation plants. The annual surpluses that PUB records are transferred to its capital reserves to finance these property, plant and equipment. This is clearly stated in PUB's annual reports. Over the next five years, PUB intends to invest $4 billion in additional water infrastructure.
Besides PUB's investments, the Government makes further substantial investments in the sewerage network. This includes the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System which will be completed in 2025 and will cost more than $4 billion.
In the next five years, the Government will spend about $3 billion on other sewerage network projects and to strengthen the resilience of our water supply. These expenditures exceed the amount of revenue from the water conservation tax which is expected to be about $1.6 billion over the same period. In other words, the Government pays for part of the total cost of securing a safe and clean supply of water for our people and businesses.
Let me now speak on protecting our environment. Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Dr Teo Ho Pin shared their views, among others. Introducing a carbon tax is the economically efficient way of reducing greenhouse gases. A carbon tax places a price signal to incentivise emitters to lower emissions.
Singapore will join dozens of other countries in pricing carbon to address climate change. Many jurisdictions that have put a price on carbon, such as Sweden, are reducing their emissions while maintaining economic growth, promoting green growth and reaping environmental benefits.
Singapore continues to provide a favourable business environment for companies. We will consult widely before implementing the carbon tax. Industry consultations have already begun and will be expanded, and public consultations will begin this month. We welcome all to contribute.
Let me now turn to diesel. We have restructured diesel taxes to introduce a volume-based component. This will incentivise reduced usage and lower pollutive emissions.
Nonetheless, as a number of Members have noted, the restructuring of diesel taxes will impact some businesses. This is an important measure to help improve the health of all Singaporeans. In the longer run, we hope users will switch to cleaner fuels and technology. In the short run, we have put in place significant offsets to help businesses manage the transition.
The first year 100% road tax rebates will more than offset the diesel duty incurred for the majority of commercial vehicles. There will also be partial road tax rebates for two more years.
The reduction of the annual Special Tax on diesel cars and taxis will also help to cushion the impact on these drivers, as Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has noted. In the Budget speech, I had urged taxi companies to pass on the Special Tax reduction to drivers. I am glad that taxi companies will be doing so in various forms.
I have earlier spoken about the spirit of partnerships which will help drive our economy. Similarly, everyone has a part to play in securing a better living environment for Singapore. We are taking decisive steps in this area because we want a cleaner and healthier environment for ourselves and our children. We want businesses, visitors and Singaporeans from all backgrounds to enjoy a lush city scape to work, live and play in.
We invest in keeping our living environment in good shape because we care for our future and our children. This is the home that we have been building and will continue to build. Home comes alive because of our people, because of our relationships.
Over the last decade, we have steadily increased our social investments. Our social expenditures, including in housing, healthcare, education and community development, have almost tripled, from $12.7 billion in FY2006 to $34 billion in FY2016.
We introduced major schemes to open up multiple pathways to success for all, provide assurance in key areas of need, and strengthen social safety nets.
In education, we significantly enhanced the quality, affordability and accessibility for all, across all levels from pre-school to tertiary.
In housing, we increased housing supply and housing subsidies.
In healthcare, we enhanced Government subsidies across all care settings, like CHAS, and introduced MediShield Life. Pioneers receive additional subsidies and benefits from the Pioneer Generation Package.
For the lower income, we enhanced Workfare, introduced Silver Support and made GST Vouchers permanent.
We will continue to refine our social policies and study new ideas and suggestions. For example, MOH is doing a major review of ElderShield.
Each Budget builds on past Budgets. Over the years, we have built up a strong social security system that serves Singaporeans well. In Budget 2017, we are focusing our efforts on continuing to empower the community and forge partnerships.
This is a movement towards the future, where we nurture a culture of caring for one another, of many helping hands, to meet a significant increase in societal needs. Our demographics are changing. We have a rapidly ageing population and our families are getting smaller. We can expect social needs to increase, for example, in healthcare. At the same time, Singaporeans are living longer, healthier lives. Our seniors can contribute meaningfully to the community as they age gracefully and actively. Indeed, many Singaporeans, both young and old, want to make a difference and give back to society. We want to empower all to try new ideas.
Hence, our social compact must be one of partnership, where each of us gives our best. As Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Mr Louis Ng pointed out, we need to strengthen community bonds. And as Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin pointed out, it is up to, and I quote, \"all of us\". Indeed, everyone − the Government, the community and individuals − all of us have a unique role to play.
There are functions that the Government is best placed to perform − such as legislation and the provision of public goods and services. And there are areas where we can achieve more, much more, when we all work together. When it comes to customising assistance to the specific needs of certain communities, or providing last-mile social service delivery, community action is critical. Even the strongest social safety nets are no substitute for the caring hearts and helpful hands of neighbours.
And we want a close partnership among individuals, communities and the Government, because this is an end in itself. This is a society that we aspire to for Singapore − a caring, resilient and inclusive society. A society where Singaporeans help fellow citizens in each way we can and where individuals and community organisations work together to make Singapore a better home for all.
This is not new to us, but we can do more to foster stronger partnerships and bring collaboration to the next level. The Government will do more by helping to create the right supportive environment to encourage community efforts, where everyone plays the part that we are best placed to perform.
We are placing greater emphasis on bringing together community efforts for key areas of need. Last year, we piloted the Community Network for Seniors to better support seniors. It has brought the Government and the community together to build \"communities of care\" right within our heartlands.
In the three pilot sites, the Community Networks have reached out to more than 15,000 seniors or 40% of seniors there. Of these, they have assisted 380 seniors with multiple needs, engaged over 5,000 seniors in active ageing and preventive health, and recruited 180 volunteers to support seniors as they age in the community. It is a small start but, at the same time, it is rewarding to see how community and the Government are working together to touch lives.
This is Mdm Lee Ah Kiow. It is nice to see her energetic and happy, exercising outdoors. But it was not like this for her just six months ago. You see, at 70, Mdm Lee has weak knees and a history of falls. Until the Community Networks learnt about her, Mdm Lee was keeping to herself at home, afraid to go out for fear of falling.
A Pioneer Generation Ambassador visited Mdm Lee and saw that she was at risk of social isolation. All the parts of the Community Networks sprang into action.
NTUC Health Cluster Support visited her. They worked with HDB to install grab bars in her home under the EASE programme. REACH Community Services Society introduced befrienders to Mdm Lee. Her new friends visit her regularly and bring her down to the fitness corner near her house for simple exercises.
This is the story of how the Community Network for Seniors, by bringing the different parts of the community together, helped to bring Mdm Lee out of isolation and lead a more active lifestyle.
The Community Network for Seniors pilot shows us the power of partnership. Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Dr Lily Neo raised interesting ideas on how we can better support the elderly to age gracefully. These are useful suggestions that we will study further.
In this Budget, we introduced the Community Mental Health efforts and the Third Enabling Masterplan. I thank Miss Cheryl Chan and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef for their support for these initiatives, and am confident that community partnership will help us build a more inclusive society.
I also take heart to see a growing spirit of enterprise in the social sector. I hope that, over time, there will be more enterprising Singaporeans and community organisations that start ground-up initiatives and make significant social impact.
Bakery Hearts is one such example. It was started by AMKFSC Community Services Ltd to help prepare unemployed women from low-income families to enter the workforce by equipping them with baking and other skills, while providing them opportunities to supplement their household income. The project grew with support from community resources and is able to touch the lives of many more families.
We continue to encourage more of such ground-up projects, as well as philanthropy and volunteerism. Last year, we introduced Our Singapore Fund and piloted the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme to encourage more businesses to organise their employees to volunteer and provide services to IPCs.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad suggested VWOs and self-help groups can play a greater role to support communities in various areas. I agree and strongly encourage our community partners to continue building up their capabilities so that they can better serve communities. This Budget provides additional funding, through the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund (VCF), to support their efforts.
Members would know of the Alzheimer's Disease Association, which provides a range of services for people with dementia and their caregivers. Tapping on the VCF, it is upgrading its IT system to centrally manage client and caregiver records and enhance data analysis capabilities. This allows its staff to increase productivity and better serve their clients. I hope many other community organisations will likewise build their capabilities to do even better work for those they serve.
By building many overlapping networks of community self-help and Government support, we build a more caring and inclusive society, and one that is resilient to weather change, in whatever form it takes.
Just as we seek to protect our home and environment for our future generations, we must ensure that our finances are sustainable for the long term.
As Ms Sun Xueling pointed out, our expenditures have started to exceed our operating revenues since FY2015. The Government had, in fact, anticipated this and prepared early, by raising revenues ahead of our spending needs. Indeed, this is the approach this Government has always taken.
We had, therefore, raised the GST in 2007 and introduced the NIR framework in 2008. In the last term of Government, we had also undertaken measures, such as making our property tax rates more progressive and increasing the duties for betting, liquor and tobacco over time. In Budget 2015, we announced increases in top marginal rates for personal income tax and revisions to the NIR framework. These measures now serve us well to meet our spending needs through to the end of this decade.
But beyond this decade, we can expect the fiscal situation to become more challenging as expenditures exceed revenues in the longer term.
First, our economy is maturing. With slowing economic growth, our revenues will also grow more slowly. Second, our population is ageing rapidly and we can expect rising expenditure needs, especially for healthcare. Third, our infrastructure needs are rising, as we seek to build new infrastructure and renew old ones to enhance our quality of life and Singapore's economic competitiveness.
Going forward, we must continue to prepare for our greater needs in the long term by working on two fronts: spending prudently and effectively; and growing our revenues fairly and sustainably.
With higher spending needs, it is ever more critical to ensure that we spend within our means to get the outcomes we want, as Mr Vikram Nair noted.
At the Ministry level, we have designed our funding policies to drive agencies to operate efficiently and effectively. Today, we budget for on-going functions using a Block Budget Framework, where Ministries are provided with budget caps for a medium term period. Within the cap, each Ministry decides how best to allocate its budget. This approach encourages Ministries to strive for cost-effectiveness, because every dollar optimised means more resources available for worthwhile programmes.
This year, we sought to further reinforce the importance of spending prudently and effectively, by applying a permanent 2% downward adjustment to the budget caps of all Ministries and Organs of State. This will free up resources that MOF can re-deploy towards higher priority requirements and projects that deliver value to citizens and businesses, such as initiatives by the Municipal Services Office. Within their adjusted budget caps, agencies will decide how to prioritise their programmes and projects, and review how they can achieve greater efficiency. Fundamentally, we want to imbue these values of prudence and innovation in all officers in the Public Service: to always seek value for money and constantly strive to improve and innovate, so that we can do more, and do better, with less.
At the project level, we are tightening scrutiny of major infrastructure projects to ensure robustness of its business case and value-for-money. We have a process today that puts large infrastructure projects, those more than $500 million, or those that are highly complex in nature, through a series of reviews before funding is approved. This process taps on a panel of senior public officers and industry practitioners, those with deep technical expertise and experience in major infrastructure developments, with the aim of optimising the project's overall design, use of space and cost-effectiveness.
At the programme level, we are designing our schemes so that subsidies are targeted at the right groups. As a general principle, we price services to recover full cost and discourage over-consumption. We then target subsidies appropriately at those in need, such as through GST Vouchers, S&CC rebates and Public Transport Vouchers. This is more progressive than under-pricing services, which implicitly subsidises all groups, including the rich.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether we evaluate programmes. On economic programmes, Minister Iswaran gave a detailed explanation about how agencies evaluate those programmes and have to adapt and change when necessary. Then, she raised the issue of the PIC. The PIC, in fact, has largely achieved its objective. But she raised examples of abuses to make her case. This is mistaken.
In fact, the fact that those abuses are uncovered is because of extensive audits that are done by the agencies, and we should commend the officers for the seriousness in which they undertake this. In many other countries, those abuses would not even be known.
The schemes were done in a way that is broad-based and reaches the right groups of people. The alternative, of course, is to have every detail scrutinised and approved before the businesses can use it. And, in fact, in many of the Budget dialogues we had with businesses, their concern was if you have too many schemes that are just based on approval, things will not move. So, it is a delicate balance and a good balance which the agencies should be commended for.
Besides spending prudently and effectively, we will have to grow our revenues through new taxes or raising tax rates over time. This challenge of raising revenues for growing needs is not unique to Singapore. If you look at many other countries, the need for more revenue to meet spending needs is a common theme that cuts across different systems. For example, Hong Kong had announced at its recent Budget that it would be setting up a tax policy unit to comprehensively review its tax system. One of its objectives would be, and I quote, to \"explore broadening the tax base and increasing revenue, so as to ensure that adequate resources are available\" to support sustainable development.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Yee Chia Hsing had asked how we intend to review our own tax system. I would like to assure them that we will ensure that our tax system continues to be both fair and sustainable.
First, our tax system must be fair and progressive across income groups. What this means is that those who are better off must contribute more. In recent Budgets, we have continued to make our personal income tax and property tax rates more progressive, even as we introduced or enhanced permanent schemes, such as Silver Support and Workfare, to provide more support to lower-income groups.
Second, a sustainable tax system is fundamentally one that rewards efforts by individuals and enterprise by our companies. As Ms Foo Mee Har pointed out, the only way to sustain a healthy revenue stream is to have a healthy and growing economy.
In more recent years, more countries have lowered or announced their intention to lower corporate income tax rates. The UK has lowered its corporate tax rate from 30% to 20% over the last 10 years and plans to further lower it to 17% by 2020. The new administration in the US has also indicated plans to cut corporate tax rates.
We must ensure that Singapore continues to be an attractive place to work and do business, so that we have a thriving and vibrant economy.
Third, sustainability is also about striking the right balance between current and future generations. We have spent prudently, built up our reserves and tapped on their returns judiciously. Ms Sylvia Lim suggested using the proceeds from land sales. Now, the proceeds from land sales go into past reserves and it is because of this prudence that we are able to build up our reserves and we can use part of these returns for our expenditure. So, we must remain disciplined and prudent in spending the returns of our reserves, so that they remain a stable and sustainable source of revenue over the long term.
Any decision to raise taxes will not be taken lightly. We will study all options carefully. While our finances today are sound, we must start planning early. This is the right and responsible way, rather than leaving problems to be dealt with by future governments when Singapore comes under fiscal strain. Planning for the issue now will allow us to better ease in the needed measures, to give our people and businesses some time to adjust.
We must plan for the long term, not five years, not 10 years, but big ambitious plans for decades ahead. Like the new airport, new towns each with distinctive features to attract families, new MRT lines. We are in a good position today, because we have planned early and invested in the long term. This ability to plan and invest for the long term is a key strategic advantage. So, we must ensure that we continue to have this capacity to invest in critical programmes and infrastructure with long-term benefits, in a way that is equitable to both current and future generations.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. This Budget sets the strategies for building a better Singapore in a sustainable way. We can move forward confidently on these strategies, as we are starting from a position of strength. This is a cumulative effort from previous Budgets. We have a well-functioning economy where most Singaporeans have good jobs; we have a good social security system that serves the majority of Singaporeans well; we have spent prudently so we have the necessary resources.
In this fast-changing world, we cannot predict how the journey ahead will pan out, but we can expect that it will not be always smooth-sailing. There is no step-by-step guide for how to venture into the volatile, unpredictable future that lies ahead for the whole world, not only Singapore. But for Singapore, we have our compass, a compass of our shared values and our common hope.
In this Budget, we set our minds to seize opportunities to succeed; to be part of, to play a part in, a caring and inclusive community; and to build, protect and pass on a truly special home to future generations.
Let us develop the deep capabilities, strengthen the spirit of enterprise to adapt and try out new things, work together in partnership, and care for and support one another.
I am confident we can do it. We have been through tougher situations. Each time, despite the naysayers, we emerged stronger and more adaptive, as we held strong together as one people.
I thank Members for sharing your ideas for our future. Let us move forward, together. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Desmond Lee.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Madam, I would just like to seek a clarification. Yesterday evening, those of us who were in this Chamber were very moved by Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin's speech, a heartfelt one about how much heart we need to put in to help people in need.
As I reflected through the night, I thought I would like to clarify with her, in respect of the divorcee she mentioned with two children earning $1,600 seeking rental housing and other forms of social support.
The first clarification is: is this an individual whom she could put us in touch with so that we can look at what happened and see how best we can assist her? Even as cases do fall through the cracks, it is important for us, as a Public Service, to make sure we pick up on all these cases and assist them.
The second clarification is: some people may take away from the speech the impression − perhaps wrongly − that the Public Service has lost heart. I am asking for this clarification on behalf of the officers who work at the rental department, the Social Support Offices, the Family Service Centres and the many other social service agencies across the Public Service who are Singaporeans and who care.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for his care. First, I want to affirm what I said yesterday. I actually do not believe that it is all on the Government and that everyone has to work together to solve all these issues. I want to affirm that I actually do not believe that the Public Service has lost heart, as some reports have said. I personally know of many deeply compassionate civil servants, especially those who work for people in rental housing, who actually go out on a limb to make things work out for the needy. That I really want to state.
The story that I mentioned yesterday, as I said in my speech, is also not based on a single story. It is based on a composite of a few stories of single-parent households. So, it is entirely possible also for some of them that they slip through the cracks − as the Senior Minister of State has said − and they could have also met the wrong person who gave the wrong advice. So, I am more than glad to link you up with each of the organisations working with each of these women for their cases to be reviewed.
I would also like to take the opportunity to state that I am also aware that, for some, they do not actually look for help because they believe mistakenly that nobody cares about them in the civil service and I think that is a mistake because that stops them from actually getting their needs met. Thank you for the question.
Mr Desmond Lee:\tI thank the hon Member for her clarification. On behalf of all the officers who work in social agencies, we will continue to work hard. And for those cases, we will follow up on them. Thank you.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Mdm Speaker, a clarification for the Minister for Finance. Earlier, he referred to my raising of the PIC scheme. The point I was making was whether, as an example, the PIC scheme, but, in general, whether there are any mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of expenditure in terms of the outcomes that are intended to be achieved?
He mentioned that the PIC scheme was largely effective. We have seen productivity data that seems to be very mixed and also weak in the domestic sectors for the last couple of years. And I am wondering whether he could elaborate further on whether there is any publicly published Government report that shows the effect of the PIC scheme on productivity. Because I may have missed something that his Ministry or MTI has published.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her question. In fact, in terms of productivity growth, the productivity growth over the period of 2011 to 2016 has been above 2%. I think it is 2.1%. It is within the range of what the ESC has set out to do. So, these measures, in terms of the productivity numbers − yes, it has achieved that sort of outcome.
But I think, more importantly, the PIC scheme was also intended to create a greater awareness amongst our SMEs of the need to take productivity seriously, to upgrade. The fact that so many businesses have actually taken up the scheme and improved their performance is a sign that the objective of raising awareness of getting businesses much more involved in it has achieved its purpose.
So, there are schemes that you cannot measure just by one parameter that it has achieved or not achieved its objective. But in terms of what it sought to do − which is to raise this broad-based awareness of the importance of productivity, getting companies involved and then getting people to participate in it, and also achieving certain measures of productivity growth − it has achieved its objective, largely.
That is why, last year, I spoke about why we need to move on to more targeted measures in the next phase.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I just have three points of clarifications for the Minister for Finance. Before I start, I just want to wish the Minister many more years of good health. I thank him for his hard work on the Budget.
My first point is regarding the presentation of the Budget Statement. I raised this in my speech. Will the Minister for Finance consider presenting one or two pages in future Budget Statements which presents the Budget according to IMF guidelines, reflecting the total net amounts of money leaving the economy to the state, and money that the state is pumping back into the economy? This is so that Singaporeans can make a well-informed assessment of whether future Budgets are expansionary enough to facilitate genuine, democratic consensus formation.
Secondly, I would just like to refer back to the net births of companies' statistics that I cited in my speech to ask what is the Minister's evaluation of the state of the SME sector. Because I highlighted that net birth of companies has been plunging in 2016. The last time we saw such a figure was in 2009. And if we push the data series even further back, the last time we saw a below-10,000 net birth figure was —
Mdm Speaker :\tKeep it short, please, Mr Perera. Your point has already been made in your speech.
Mr Leon Perera: Okay. The last point is that I just wanted to ask the Finance Minister again about the timing of the price hikes that we have seen. As other Members have alluded to, the Government did have the option of either pre-announcing some of these price hikes, and/or phasing or staggering them, and/or deffering them.
So, given that there have been four price hikes − gas, water, electricity and parking − all within a space of three months, at a time when GDP growth is the lowest it has been since 2009, jobseekers outnumber job vacancies and so on. And given that the Government has shared that the reasons behind these are not political − and I believe that was shared yesterday − can the Minister help Singaporeans understand a little better? What are the non-political reasons behind timing the price hikes in this way?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Mr Leon Perera for his questions. First, on whether the data that he has asked for, as prescribed in the IMF format, is available. In fact, it is. And if he actually accessed the IMF website, he will find that our numbers are there, because we submit these numbers to the IMF.
The reason why the Budget Book is presented the way it is, is that this meets our specific needs. We need to know, for particular Ministries, how much spending is available, what is the development spending, what is the operating spending. Whereas the IMF is for a macroeconomic evaluation. It serves a different purpose.
As to whether a particular Budget is expansionary or not expansionary, in fact, it is not just by looking at those numbers. If you consult the economists, you will know that they actually take great pains to model the effects of the monetary and fiscal policies. And, in the case of fiscal policy, how much of a fiscal impulse a particular Budget provides to the economy. Here, we are fortunate that MAS would do some of these simulations to give us a sense of whether it is appropriate or not appropriate, because we also have the important objective of keeping inflation in check.
These are not numbers that are not available, or numbers that you can just read off and conclude that it is expansionary or not expansionary. It takes a general equilibrium model for us to look at some of these impacts.
The next question on the net birth of companies, whether it is an indication that companies are not doing well. In fact, there are many reasons behind the birth rates and exit rates of companies, and we must expect that it will fluctuate over cycles, depending on the economic conditions and so on.
I think Minister Iswaran has explained that if we are looking at the health of SMEs, there is a broad range of factors that one has to look into. If the Member's specific question is, are SMEs doing okay, I have indicated in both my Budget Speech and in the round-up speech that the performances across sectors, across industries and across firms differ. And that is why we need a targeted approach. That is why I used the Chinese phrase, 对 症 下 药, which means to have the right remedy for the right ailment.
It is not a case of having broad-based measures, that every firm is doing badly and therefore, we need a big rescue operation, as we had during the Global Financial Crisis.
So, those things will have to be carefully studied and we cannot just draw a simplistic conclusion, just a number of firms are formed this year, that year and, therefore, the situation is better or worse.
The Member's final question was on the timing of the increases. The fact is, first and foremost, do we agree that the price signal is important so that consumers know what the actual cost of the resource is and, therefore, can then take action to mitigate the use? If the answer is yes, then, there is never a good time. Because I do not think any Finance Minister finds it a popular thing to come here and say, \"Oh, I am going to increase this. I am going to increase that\". It is never. I do not take great joy out of announcing all these increases. But the fact is, we have to do the right and responsible thing.
The right and responsible thing is to make sure that the price signal and the correct price feeds through with the economy early enough. If we do things early, often we will also have the ability to provide the mitigation package, the support package, which is what we have done, whether it is for diesel duty, whether it is for water, whether it is increases in U-Save rebates.
This is a fundamental point that we got to make sure that we do things correctly, we have the right price signal, and that every one of us factors this into our decision-making and do our part.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister on two suggestions that I made to support businesses and individuals during this difficult period. One is: there has been a lot of questions about the use of state land or vacant properties − about 1,000 of them − whether the SMEs or operating businesses that find rentals high could use the spaces as public offices, low-rent public offices, borrowing the idea of JTC LaunchPad. There has been quite a lot of calls on that, so I would like to hear the Minister's response.
Second, Mdm Speaker, is whether the Minister will also consider suspending income tax payment when someone is unemployed, as well as more flexible use of the CPF in order to tide them over to pay mortgage.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her questions. First, on state land, whether it can be used by SMEs and so on. The amount of land that is used, whether it is commercial, industrial or residential, is planned very carefully by the various agencies, and also together with the economic agencies. Where there is a need, more land can be released, but where some temporary uses can be made, in many cases, the Singapore Land Authority has allowed for some of them to be used.
But we should not take that as a matter of course, because, if we do, then a lot of that planning will have problems later on. If the business is a startup, perhaps, it requires a lower cost, but if it is going to operate permanently in a particular way, we cannot just permanently subsidise rental because that would eventually make it harder for businesses to adapt.
On the second question on whether we can suspend income tax payment, for those who have particular difficulties, they can, in fact, apply to IRAS for a deferment of payment or for payments over a period of time. So, if you do know of particular cases, you can advise them to apply to IRAS.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): I seek two clarifications. The first is to the Minister for Finance in relation to the diesel tax − whether he would consider ameliorating the impact for vehicles that are serving the needs of VWOs, in order to also help the organisations save some costing.
My second clarification is for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources − whether the Government will consider water rationing across the board for individual households as well as commercial entities, as also previously suggested by a former Nominated Member, Prof Tan Tai Yong.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Ms Chia Yong Yong for her questions. Whether we can ameliorate the impact on VWOs, we have the diesel tax and the road tax rebates for certain types of vehicles. I would ask the Ministry to have a look at it in greater detail.
But let me say that for the VWOs, there are also many other schemes to help with the transport-related matters.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Masagos, do you wish to respond?
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M):\tIf I may, Mdm Speaker. I thought it is odd for me to respond during the clarification of my Ministry's COS.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. For rationing, we have been asked by many Members, as well as the public, to try and put this rationing regime into a yearly exercise for everybody. There are many reasons why we should do it and there are also problems when we want to do it. Therefore, what we have decided to do is to start small in schools, and we started last year. Ten schools participated. This year, more schools – 11 schools – are participating and preschools are also participating.
That is addressing part of the problem. Hopefully, we will never have to go into rationing when we are ready with our desalination plants and our NEWater plants. I think to press the point about how precious water is by making it difficult through rationing may not always be productive.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Finance Minister for his speech. I have a clarification. NIRC has consistently contributed 20%-21% of total revenues in the most recent two Budgets.
In a recent article on Bloomberg, Norway Central Bank Chief warned of how the risk of a 50% decline in 10 years of the sovereign wealth fund increases five times if government withdrawals from the fund increases from 3%-4%.
Given our reliance on NIRC to fund our Budget, what are the inherent risks we face? Should there be huge changes in global outlooks of capital markets, how does that change our expected long-term rates of returns and our ability to use NIRC to fund our Budget?
Mr Heng Swee Keat:\tI thank Ms Sun Xueling for her question. Indeed, it is an important one. First of all, let me put it in perspective that, indeed, we are drawing about 20-odd percent of our Budget from the NIRC. The fact is that we still have 80% that is based on current revenue. It is important that we keep a vibrant economy and that we keep our tax rates in such a way that allows us to do this.
Is there a risk that the returns will not be adequate in the future? When the former Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, revised the NIR framework, there were a number of careful safeguards that were put into the spending rules. Our spending, first of all, does not depend on the fluctuations in the market from year to year. In fact, it is the expected long-term rate of return. That means that in a very good year when markets are very vibrant, we do not just take very vibrant returns but, rather, the agencies give us an expected long-term rate of return, and we look at that number. If you look at the numbers, it has been conservative, compared to many of the endowment funds. That is one important safeguard.
Two, it is that we only use up to 50% of the expected returns. As long as the return is positive, we add to the reserves, not only through new revenue sources, new surpluses but we add to it through the returns not spent. That is something that we take very seriously.
The third thing that we do is to make sure that if the returns are very good in one particular year, asset value tends to be very high, the rate that we apply, the long-term return that we apply, is not to the very high base, because we know that the markets will go up and down. If you apply to a very high base, you may overspend. For that reason, it is based on a smoothed asset base, so that in good years, we do not overdo it, and, in bad years, we will still have adequate resources. All these returns are real returns, net of inflation; it is not just some big nominal numbers that are used.
Indeed, the Member's point is a very important one; that we have to be very, very careful in guarding the use of these reserves and in making sure that we spend on a sustainable basis.
Ms Chia Yong Yong:\tFurther clarification for the Minister for Finance. I apologise I did not make myself very clear just now. I was not referring to vehicles owned by VWOs but, rather, to the commercial operators because many VWOs are not able to or, for some reason, do not own their own vehicles. They rely on commercial operators to supply the services.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Thank you, Ms Chia, for the clarification. I am sorry I misunderstood your question. This is something which I will ask the Ministry to look into.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Mdm Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker:\tOrder. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. We are now going into the Committee of Supply to debate the estimates. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply to start immediately. With the earlier commencement time, the revised \"guillotine\" time for Head U, Prime Minister's Office is 6.00 pm which includes a tea break. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure. The Clerk will now read the order of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018","subTitle":"Committee of Supply − Paper Cmd 8 of 2017","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, contained in Paper Cmd 8 of 2017. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimates Outlays for FY 2017 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 545 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a sitting, the reduction of Question Time and Parliament's resolution to extend sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members both from the back and front benches to adhere to their time limits, as I will be very stringent in my time-keeping. But I say that every year, so it is nothing new.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head U, Prime Minister's Office. Mr Cedric Foo.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply − Head U (Prime Minister's Office)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Madam, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Madam, my cut is on \"An Integrated Public Service\". Our Public Service is, indeed, the envy of the world. It has done very well and I am even reminded of a story − there was a certain foreign government which wanted to buy an entire Statutory Board from Singapore.
They have done well and I commend them for it. But even Olympians can improve, as Joseph Schooling showed us last week. Therefore, in confronting a horizon that is rapidly changing, digitising and globalising, our Public Service will do well to keep an eye on the horizon and to see how we can move with the times, so that it can remain the enviable service that so many hanker after.
In the early days of nation building, each Ministry's mission was rather well-defined and each could go about its own job to achieve its mission: MND to build good flats, MINDEF to protect Singapore's sovereignty and so forth.
Now, fast forward to today's digital and globalised age. Though the basic mission remains the same for each Ministry, there are many \"horizontal factors\" that impact how each functionally-organised vertical Ministry should fulfil its mission. Such factors cut right across, sometimes, two, three or more Ministries.
Take our ageing demographic as an example. It will affect how our flats are designed, how many recruits the SAF will be able to enlist, the dependency ratio impacting retirement age, geriatric care, even burial sites and so forth. Another horizontal factor relates to procurement. Here, the Government has the ability to leverage on scale to procure more smartly if every Ministry could pool their major procurement needs centrally.
One other area is data analytics. This is an area where collaboration can yield very good results. Through our various Government e-portals, there are valuable data sets that can be mined and put to good use to improve the Public Service in the areas of public transport, healthcare, urban planning and so forth.
In this fast-paced digital world, our citizens are also expecting more from the Government. They expect a single point of contact and a very highly responsive service. Would it be possible one day, and hopefully soon, for Singaporeans to hold just one secure mobile app to transact − transact meaning to apply, to be informed, to pay, to receive and so on − with every Government department which is also linked to the private sector.
The coordination among Government Ministries and agencies to seize opportunities in this new world and to meet the challenges that confront us can produce much better outcomes than if each Ministry worked on its own.
One hallmark of Singapore's good governance has been the ability and determination to take a concerted view on how to improve Singapore for Singaporeans. It has never been about the parochial interest of a single Ministry or Government agency. This may seem obvious, but such concerted whole-of-Government approach is often not present in many countries. In several of these countries, the Minister guards his turf jealously, but not so in Singapore. Our founding leaders did so, and our current leaders must continue to do this, in order to secure Singapore's future for the next 50 or more years.
To support our growth, the Public Service needs to work as \"One\" and also to plan for the long term, as Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke about, and even as it tends to Singapore's immediate needs.
Increasingly, as our economy matures, our strategic resources like manpower, land, energy and water must be managed better for there are trade-offs when used by one Ministry versus another. Therefore, the one-dimensional approach of just having vertical silos in Ministries may not work so well. However, matrix structures which have been practised elsewhere, may also pose its own difficulties. I think, fundamentally, it boils down to the ethos and the shared value of the Public Service, that each and every one, in whichever Ministry you may be, must think of the whole and put it before its own interest. I think, with that, Singapore will do well.
I would like to ask the Minister if he can help us understand what else we can do to be an integrated Public Service.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Chairman, we live in extremely challenging and exciting times. Change has to be the only constant in our lives and it is also how we transform ourselves and our mindsets to keep abreast. The Singapore Public Service is highly qualified and capable, ranks well in terms of effectiveness and regulatory quality at the global level. The staff form a part of the Public Service leadership, helping in the formulation of policies for Singapore and upholding Singaporean interests.
As such, the need for robust, versatile, rapid thinking, informed and sensitive individuals is necessary. With globalisation and a more connected world, our Public Service must be prepared with resourcefulness, creativity and adaptability.
How do we ensure our Public Service staff can:
(a) continuously learn and develop experiential capabilities?
(b) execute a collaborative culture across organisations and Ministries to reduce wastage, enhance efficiency and productivity, especially in the areas of procurement, manpower and budgeting?
(c) share best practices over various platforms as well as keep open communications channel? Here is where teamwork to strengthen various domains must come hand-in-hand with breaking down the unnecessary silos; and
(d) be more integrated in our heartlands and the issues the man-on-the-street faces. This is also where some form of sharing of databases may be sensible, within limits of maintaining confidentiality.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mdm Chairman, Singapore's Public Service is renowned for its transparency and efficiency. In fact, it often tops international rankings. In the early days, the Public Service created many world-class infrastructure, such as the PSA port, Changi Airport, HDB housing, Garden City, Intelligent Island, Jurong Island and so on, all of which we are very proud of.
In recent years, however, competition has caught up in fast and furious ways. Some cities might have even surpassed us in hard infrastructure, technology applications and people- and business-friendly regulations. Singaporeans who travel frequently often warn that we should not slacken in our efforts to improve.
As our society matures, so has our Public Service. Our public institutions appear to be much larger, having more specialisations and divisions of work, longer command chain and slower decision-making. It does not help if our newly-recruited officers serving the public do not walk the ground, or those serving businesses do not understand how SMEs work.
Mdm Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister for his vision and plans for an innovative and integrated Public Services. Would he consider setting up a \"Cut Red Tape Task Force\" to simplify regulatory burden on our businesses? How can the Public Service culture be improved to empower officers, young and long-serving, to challenge the status quo, take initiative and drive change? How often do officers keep track of competition to stay ahead? How does the Public Service learn from the best practices in the private sector to keep itself lean and mean? How could there be more strikers in the team, borrowing a soccer parlance?
The late Dr Goh Keng Swee once said of the EDB: \"It's better to hold back a stallion than to kick a mule\". Would this quote still be apt to describe the frontier-charting spirit of our Public Service?
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chairman, the Public Service is an important cornerstone of our society's functions and governance.
Recent events that threaten the functions, privacy and security of our public sector are a cause for concern.
For example, earlier this week, it was reported that MINDEF's I-Net System was breached. The personal data of more than 850 National Servicemen and employees were stolen, which included their NRIC numbers, telephone numbers and dates of birth. MINDEF's Deputy Secretary said that the attack and breach were targeted and well-planned, and that they could not have been the work of casual hackers or criminal gangs. That is worrying.
If a syndicate or an organised group has managed to breach one of our most well-equipped systems, by MINDEF no less, it leaves little to wonder how well-guarded our public sector systems are and how well-equipped our public servants are in ensuring the functions, privacy and security of our public sector systems.
A study done by Accenture which surveyed 150 federal, state and local government executives in the US, found that almost 90% of respondents agreed with the statement that \"cyberattacks are a bit of a black box; we don't quite know how or when they will affect our organisation\".
Another similar survey was done with 2,000 executives from large enterprises. It is interesting to note that 78% of commercial organisation respondents are confident that its cybersecurity strategy will demonstrate valuable results, while 53% of government agency respondents are confident this is so. Even though these findings are from the US, it is worth learning from their responses regarding new public sector capabilities.
Given the current interest and emphasis on building new and strategic capabilities in areas, such as cybersecurity and intelligence, data analytics, and digital and software engineering, I would like to ask PMO how are our Public Service and public officers being prepared to stay ahead of the curve?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Chairman, at last year's PMO COS, Deputy Prime Minister Teo signalled strongly about the Government building stronger engineering capabilities across the Public Service. He announced that the Public Service will employ an additional 1,000 engineers and raise the salaries of our public sector engineers to attract and retain engineering officers in the Service.
Last year, at the Public Service Leadership Dinner, Deputy Prime Minister Teo, also mentioned about the need to prepare Singapore and Singaporeans towards a Smart Nation. He highlighted that digitisation will transform the way we work and deliver public services. He also spoke about the cross-cutting issues facing the Public Service and how the Service could work together to address those issues to ensure coordination and coherence across the whole-of-Government.
One of the CFE's recommendations called for the Government to harness data as an asset and to build deep capabilities in data analytics.
I would like to use this opportunity at the COS to seek an update from PMO on the progress in these areas; in particular, on how the Public Service is investing in strategic capabilities, such as engineering, digitisation and data analytics.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Madam, I declare my interests as the President of SPD and Board Member of SG Enable.
Yesterday, I spoke on the need for a mindset change in the HR policies of the Public Service Division (PSD) in the employment of persons with disabilities. I also recognised that the final employment decisions are rightly left to the respective agencies but, nonetheless, observed that unless the human resource teams of PSD and the respective agencies share the same values and commitment as our political leaders and the Head of the Civil Service, we will see very little progress. It has been a year since the Government announced plans to employ persons with disabilities.
On Sunday, I did a search on the website of PSD on the word \"inclusive\" just to see if I could find any progress. It returned 14 results, including one search result for \"inclusive of GST\". There are actually two close results. One was a speech by Deputy Prime Minister Teo in 2012 at the COS in which he spoke in the context of the re-employment in the Public Service for retiring officers. The next was Minister Tan Chuan-Jin giving his speech at the Singapore HR Awards in 2016 for the employment of persons with disabilities by public agencies.
I want to know if employment is, indeed, inclusive. I want to ask and I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will give us the replies. At this time, I would like to acknowledge that it is not going to be easy but I also appeal to PSD on its second core value, which is − Please go the extra mile; please seek feedback and suggestions and also assistance from SG Enable and the other organisations and, in your hiring policies, please dare to change and to learn.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Chairan, I had previously spoken about the need for civil servants to have thick skin at a time when more is expected, more is demanded and less is tolerated.
We have seen how ugly people − all over the world, not just in Singapore − can get, when they forget the basic grace and decency that make us human. We have also seen the best among us, the brilliant, the faithful, the generous.
The Public Service works with the many publics when they design and implement policies. The Service works in a world where people with compassion and magnanimity live cheek by jowl with the perverse and the mendacious.
The best, and the worst among us, and all those in between; it is a daunting task.
The Civil Service needs to work in a world where regressions show you significant factors, where evidence-based policy-making requires you to review data and test assumptions. The Service also needs to work in a world where there is more demand than supply of resources.
The Ministers move the Bills, we in this House debate, but the Service must take a considered view.
Previously, we had PS21, a change movement launched in 1995 to prepare and transform the public sector to be future-ready for challenges and innovate to seize opportunities. In 2012, the Public Service embarked on a journey of Public Sector Transformation to evolve their approaches with a laser focus on the citizen and community, to realise the vision of \"One Trusted Public Service with Citizens at the Centre\".
Today, transformation must continue. And more intensely so. There are three areas which I think we ought to consider: how to work together, how to work better, and, finally, how to develop public officers.
First, we need the different parts of the Public Service to work cohesively together, with a more integrated approach, to deliver more coherent services to citizens; second, we need to harness new technologies to better serve the public; and third, having the right skills to deliver public service effectively.
Singapore has become a very complex place to govern. Population and climate change are cross-cutting issues whose impacts are probably felt in the long run, and not now.
We have the \"whole-of-Government\" as an organising concept which is fine and sounds very efficient, but really, can we and should we mobilise the whole-of-Government to address a single issue? The truth is, we can but we cannot do so without recognising that there are tensions between different organisational forms.
There are domain experts, and there are issue experts. We need the PUB to work on water, but we need them also to work with NParks, MND, HDB, BCA and a whole alphabet soup of agencies.
The following questions come to mind: how is the whole-of-Government working together today to ensure that we are addressing them adequately and well? How are the different Government agencies convening to discuss trade-offs and make decisions that are in Singapore's and our citizens' best interests?
To take a step back, it may not even be the Government holding the sole key to these decisions; these challenges will need to be tackled at a whole-of-Singapore level. The Government needs to be able to partner with, and harness the innovative spirit of Singaporeans, businesses and so on, so that we can move ahead together.
There is still more room for the Public Service to be bold and innovative. We can, for example, reduce carbon emissions across all sectors in a most cost-effective way. I would like to ask the Minister how can we review our legislative and regulatory processes, to incentivise and facilitate innovation, while mitigating compliance costs.
Technology has transformed the way citizens live, work and interact with one another. Many services and businesses have shifted to the digital space, with more transactions now happening online via desktop or mobile, and younger citizens are more at ease and satisfied with usage of online Government services.
Recently, I read that, at JP Morgan, a software programme can review contracts that had previously required hundreds of thousands of hours of lawyers' time. I can imagine the nervous lawyers rethinking their billable hours, but I think this is an incredible leap forward and will certainly raise the expectations of JP Morgan clients.
We can, and should, harness the power of technology for public ends.
With the increased expectations come pressure on the whole-of-Government to meet higher expectations. The ability to understand and harness technology to serve citizens better is the crux of this transformation of the public sector, and I do not mean just digitising existing processes and services to go paperless.
The whole-of-Government needs to leverage on the power of digital technologies and data to fundamentally re-imagine and transform our capabilities.
So, I wish to ask the Minister what is the Government doing to build such strategic capabilities while circumventing legislative, security and privacy concerns, and how can these translate into better outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans?
Lastly, I want to end with the public official himself. Technology will re-invent business models and affect existing jobs. We also expect roles within the public sector to change and evolve.
The Committee on the Future Economy recommended that Singaporeans continue to acquire and utilise deep skills. This need for continuous learning is also what the SkillsFuture initiative encourages and supports. Therefore, it is important for the public sector workforce to adapt a vigorous appetite for lifelong learning and pick up skills relevant for new roles. How will the Government ensure that Public Service officers have the right skills to deliver public services effectively?
I am also interested to know, beyond just developing Public Service officers, how the Government intends to support its officers. The Public Sector is Singapore's largest employer and sets the tone for people practices across industries. How will the diverse and inclusive sector provide all its employees, especially the older officers, with the necessary support to perform to their fullest potential?
Finally, the ever important dictum to do more with less. As portions of roles within the Civil Service get outsourced, we should end up with a trimmer and leaner workforce. Still, how do we instil the spirit and standards of innovation in the Civil Service workforce nonetheless?
I hope the Minister can address these concerns of mine.
Before I end, I also wish to ask of us, both inside and outside the House, that we should also acknowledge the good work and high standards that our Public Service is known for and delivers consistently. It is always easy to critique and pick on every mistake, every misstep. Let us give credit where credit is due. Let us be gracious in our criticism.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): The introduction of a carbon tax is an important move towards climate change resilience. Minister Heng has stated that revenue from carbon tax will help to fund measures by industries to reduce emissions. Does this mean that the revenue will be ring-fenced and channelled back to these purposes? If that is so, what are the following measures?
The Province of British Columbia has used its carbon tax revenue to reduce its income and corporate tax, and they now have the lowest personal income tax in Canada. Would we also consider doing likewise, which was also advocated by Al Gore who said, \"Tax what we burn, not what we earn\". Economists have argued this could improve overall efficiency of the economy.
Naomi Klein, in her book \"This Changes Everything\", writes about how we are stuck in a capitalistic mode of consumption. It is a systemic problem, and Singapore needs a cultural shift to change our behaviour and habits of consumption.
Ground-up initiatives can make this kind of cultural shift and there are many such successful initiatives around the world. We have examples like Singapore Really Really Free Market (SRRFM) where goods and services are shared for free, part of a movement to counteract capitalism and reduce consumption.
Could the revenue be used to support these movements, have their voices amplified, and to create a culture of sustainable consumption and production that goes far beyond a carbon tax? Laozi said: \"生而不忧，为而不恃\", which means we must be mindful we are not master of nature and master of all resources. So, let us be gentler to Mother Nature.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mdm Chairperson. First, let me thank Members for their views and their strong support for the work of our public officers.
Over the past week, Members debated how to position Singapore for the future and move ahead as one people. As challenges become more cross-cutting, the Government needs to be even more closely coordinated in policy formulation and policy execution, and to harness and manage our key national resources more effectively. This will help ensure that the Public Sector is ready to help implement the recommendations of the Committee on the Future Economy and to take Singapore forward.
I want to assure Members that our public officers do work tirelessly to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. There are many examples of exemplary public officers who go the extra mile to help those with particular needs or are in distress, from HDB, LTA, WDA, SSOs ‒ the whole alphabet soup, as Mr Seah referred to. Indeed, we recognise such officers each year to encourage everyone in the Public Service to follow their example. However, no system is perfect, and we are constantly striving to do better. Each one of us who serves the public ‒ public officers, Members of this House – and members of the public, too, have a role to play. So, each year, we also recognise members of the public who have contributed to making our public services more responsive and empathetic.
Mdm Chairperson, while our public officers at all levels work quietly and tirelessly and do not seek praise, a little encouragement does help.
I take the points raised by Members of this House in the positive spirit for improvement but I hope that Members will rise from time to time, like Mr Seah today, Mr Ganesh or Ms Kuik, to also offer encouragement for the good work of the many public officers who have worked hard and gone the extra mile to serve their constituents and Singaporeans. So, it is in this spirit that, today, I outline four priorities for the Public Service: integrating strategic planning and execution; driving innovation; building new capabilities; and developing our public officers.
First, integrating strategic planning and execution. Mr Cedric Foo, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about coordination among Government agencies and resource management in the Public Service.
Two years ago, I announced the formation of the PMO-Strategy Group. Last year, PMO-SG continued its work to strengthen whole-of-Government planning and execution, supporting the Prime Minister and the three Coordinating Ministers to tackle long-term, cross-cutting issues.
As part of the consolidation and strengthening of the core centre-of-Government functions, we merged the National Population and Talent Division and the National Climate Change Secretariat into the Strategy Group.
As Mr Seah Kian Peng pointed out, there are cross-cutting issues which have longer term impact. Population is certainly one of them. It frames the work of many Ministries − covering areas, such as the economy, healthcare, workforce, infrastructure and defence planning, as Mr Seah correctly pointed out. Most importantly, we will also continue to strengthen the Singapore family with marriage and parenthood measures to support couples to own homes and have children. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will update Members on these plans later.
Climate change is another cross-cutting issue with long-term implications that will be even more keenly felt by future generations. Coordinated actions by all countries are needed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Singapore played a constructive and facilitative role in the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which came into force on 4 November 2016. Singapore is a Party to the Agreement and has pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.
Mr Kok Heng Leun asked how we intend to achieve this. We have identified four strategies in our Climate Action Plan published last year. We will improve our energy efficiency, reduce our emissions from power generation, develop and deploy low-carbon technologies, and encourage collective action among all stakeholders. This plan is an example of whole-of-Government inter-Ministry work which was coordinated by National Climate Change Secretariat, which is now in PMO-SG. We evaluated every single option, what the cost is to the economy and to Singaporeans, and what effect it would have on mitigating carbon emissions. Then, we lined them all up and chose those which were most efficient, made most sense for us.
The Minister for Finance has announced in the Budget Speech that the Government will aim to implement a carbon tax from 2019. This is one of the measures which will be efficient and encourage carbon mitigation.
A carbon tax will incentivise businesses and consumers to reduce emissions. It will complement the regulatory measures we have introduced and provide price certainty to industrial facilities for investments in clean energy and energy efficiency.
The carbon tax revenue will not be earmarked for specific purposes to retain flexibility. In fact, the way that Mr Kok described carbon tax in British Columbia, it seemed to be the cure-all for all fiscal woes. If that is indeed the case, I am sure the Minister for Finance will be delighted. But, no. We are not earmarking it for specific purposes to retain credibility. But Government funds will support measures, such as enhancing energy efficiency incentives and training workers in energy management. These will help our companies use less energy, save costs and reduce their emissions. Industry consultations on the carbon tax have already begun and will be expanded. We will begin public consultations this month.
MEWR will have more to say about the carbon tax and carbon emissions later on.
Our companies, particularly those with an established track record in clean energy and energy efficiency, are in a good position to seize green growth opportunities in the region and beyond as countries, including Singapore, take steps to reduce carbon emissions.
Second, driving innovation. Mr Lee Yi Shyan highlighted that the Public Service needs to be innovative to position Singapore for the future. Our leaders in the Public Service set the tone for public officers to work together and pursue innovative solutions.
The Public Service has embarked on a transformational journey over the past few years to become more innovative, work smarter through technology, deliver seamless services, connect with citizens, and build a future-ready workplace. But this is always a work-in-progress. We can always do better, we can always be more efficient, we can always be more responsive.
To further these efforts, Prime Minister Lee has appointed Minister Ong Ye Kung to champion Public Service innovation. Minister Ong will focus on a number of key cross-cutting areas that require close coordination among agencies.
For a start, this will cover two key areas. First, the review of regulations to better support innovation and entrepreneurship. Second, adopting procurement methods that support industry development, and helping our companies and people seize new economic opportunities. These initiatives are in line with the recommendations of the Committee on the Future Economy. Minister Ong will also work with the Public Service on further areas to drive change and innovation.
The CFE had highlighted the need to harness technology as a source of comparative advantage for our economy and to protect our national security. Digitisation is creating new industries and transforming existing ones, such as finance, healthcare and corporate services. Within the Public Service, we will continue to use technology to drive innovation, increase productivity, and transform and improve the way that we deliver services to the public.
Currently, the responsibility for driving technology adoption in the Public Service is rather dispersed. We are studying how we can better integrate our strategy and processes. This push for a more integrated and technology-enabled Government is crucial in our efforts to build a Smart Nation. I assure Mr Lee that the Public Service will do its part to help Singapore stay competitive and respond quickly to the fast-changing global developments.
Third, building new capabilities in the Public Service. Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about the Government's plans to build new strategic capabilities in the Public Service. Two key capabilities that the Public Service needs to strengthen are digital capabilities and engineering.
I spoke about the importance of Digital Government earlier. We need to build up our IT professional workforce to support priority areas. We will grow a core group of 250 professionals in GovTech and Cyber Security Agency to drive key digital capabilities in areas, such as data science and cybersecurity, in the Public Service.
For example, many of you would be familiar with apps, such as OneService and MyResponder, developed by GovTech in partnership with agencies to improve the lives of Singaporeans.
OneService allows Government agencies to respond quickly to citizens' feedback. So, not one app for everything in Government, but at least one app for one service. Through MyResponder, close to 800 volunteers were able to provide timely CPR last year, and I understand that this has led directly to saving several lives.
Besides using available technologies, these professionals will work closely with our Universities and industry to experiment with and create new products and services, and enable further policy innovation. It is important that Government agencies trial new technologies and be early adopters.
We also need a broader appreciation and application of these new technologies in the Public Service as a whole. We will, therefore, be training 10,000 public officers over the next four years in digital capabilities, such as using more data analytics and data science in policy formulation, service delivery, corporate services and strengthening cybersecurity.
Minister Yaacob Ibrahim will touch more on our efforts to support cybersecurity professionals in the appropriate COS.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked about building engineering capabilities in the public sector. This is another strategic capability.
Last year, I announced the establishment of three Centres of Excellence (CentExs) − JTC, GovTech and DSTA. These CentExs have done well. They have partnered many agencies and research institutions to develop innovative technologies and solutions.
JTC, as CentEx for infrastructure and facilities management, developed their own integrated smart estate and building operations system called J-Ops. J-Ops uses existing sensors in buildings to monitor and analyse essential services and systems not in one building but in several buildings from a central location. This raises productivity as our facility managers can optimise ops room personnel and technicians over several buildings and facilities. But on top of that, this system also allows them to use data analytics and predictive maintenance to pre-empt issues and reduce energy consumption. This system has the potential to transform how we manage our buildings and facilities.
Some issues are further from the public eye, but no less important. This year, we built up capabilities in two new CentExs − JTC for underground caverns and LTA for tunnelling. These are important areas to optimise our land resources. These CentExs will develop and share deep technical expertise within the Public Service and optimise deployment and development of these specialities across the Public Service.
To strengthen the engineering leadership pipeline, we have also introduced the PSC (Engineering) Scholarship since last year to attract bright and passionate young people to pursue exciting and meaningful careers in engineering in the Public Service.
The Government's focus to build engineering capabilities has led to strong interest in Public Service engineering careers. The Public Service recruited over 1,000 engineers last year, bringing the total to close to 9,000.
We also look forward to partnering the private sector and companies in building these digital and engineering capabilities in the public sector to further support Singapore's transformation and the delivery of public services for Singaporeans.
Finally, developing our public officers. As Mr Seah Kian Peng has pointed out, the Public Service sets the tone for progressive people practices. We invest heavily in the training of our officers so that they have the skills to do their jobs well, not just today's jobs but tomorrow's jobs. For example, as I had mentioned, the Civil Service College will partner agencies and external providers, such as Coursera, to train 10,000 officers in digital capabilities. This skills-based approach refreshes our officers' skills and will facilitate officers' deployment within and across agencies to optimise job needs and job matches.
We have merged a number of career tracks for graduates and non-graduates since 2015 to provide greater opportunities for career progression and development. Once an officer is on the job, it is performance and readiness for bigger job responsibilities that matter. All officers who perform well and show potential for leadership are given the opportunity to participate in development programmes and be considered for higher positions.
The Public Service will continue to be proactive in implementing family-friendly practices. The Public Service will begin a pilot to enable officers who are starting or growing their families to spend more time with their infants. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will be providing more details later.
The Government recognises the contributions and experience of our older workers. The public and private sectors, our unions and workers have worked closely together to provide guidelines for re-employment. To support those who want to continue to work, the Public Service took the lead to introduce re-employment in accordance with these guidelines in July 2011.
We review these guidelines regularly. Following our latest review and in consultation with the public sector unions, from 1 July 2017, we will remove wage reductions on re-employment for public sector officers re-employed to the same job grade. These officers will continue to receive their last-drawn salary. This is similar to the practice of most private sector companies.
Public officers and pensioners on older medical schemes currently enjoy medical benefits when they are hospitalised in our restructured hospitals. As a continuation of this stay, we will also cover up to 28 days of in-hospital stay at community hospitals from 1 July 2017, providing better access for these officers to the services offered by community hospitals. This also supports MOH's policy to right-site medical care in the most appropriate setting, depending on the medical needs of the patient.
To better support HR policies for our public officers, a new integrated HR and payroll management system is scheduled to come online by 2020. This new system will replace and integrate different systems currently deployed in several Ministries and public agencies. The system will automate many manual HR processes and claims, and enhance productivity. Our officers can also benefit from integrated and structured career development and learning platforms.
Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about Public Service employment of persons with disabilities. I have asked our public agencies and Ministries to look seriously into this matter to see how we can do more and do better. In recent years, we have introduced a number of initiatives in collaboration, indeed, with SG Enable, the agency set up to help persons with disabilities gain employment. For instance, the Public Service posts up suitable vacancies on SG Enable's job portal. We are also appointing champions among senior management in all our agencies to drive the hiring and integration of persons with disabilities in the organisations.
We also partner VWOs to create job opportunities. One of our agencies, Vital, worked with the Autism Resource Centre to hire persons with disabilities to support the digitisation of files.
The Public Service has employed about 270 persons with disabilities by end 2016. As an inclusive employer, the Public Service will continue to find ways to expand opportunities for persons with disabilities to take on meaningful jobs in accordance with their abilities.
Mdm Chairperson, let me thank Members once again for their strong support for the Public Service.
The Public Service has played an important role in Singapore's nation-building. Even as we transform, we remain guided by the core values of Integrity, Service and Excellence. The Public Service will continue to partner Singaporeans and businesses to transform our economy and seize new opportunities. We will continue to ensure good governance and effective execution to prepare Singapore and Singaporeans for the future.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Chairman, the digital revolution will bring many new possibilities for citizens as well as businesses. The Budget has supported the CFE's recommendation to help businesses transform through the Industry Transformation Roadmap. Can I have an update from the Minister on the progress of the Smart Nation initiative in helping businesses, especially local SMEs, to identify and adopt impactful technologies to boost capability, capacity and productivity?
I would also like to suggest that we consider setting up Innovation Centres or Centres of Excellence for key sectors where transformation used in smart technologies can make an impact. And this goes beyond the current capability of SME centres or industry associations because the largest impact will come from deep experts who can identify industry trends, IP and research that can drive innovation at all levels − the business, across value chains and the whole eco-system, including facilitating connections between public and private funding as well as technology partners. Given how Smart Nation is strategic to Singapore's future, I believe that one-stop access to our experts in business and technology will be crucial to the success of Smart Nation.
The Budget has put a lot of emphasis on our need for skills in adopting new technologies, such as analytics, cybersecurity and Internet of Things (IoT). However, these are primarily today's needs and today's shortage of skillsets. Digital revolution leads to disruptive changes in the industry and the economy and there are also other technologies that are developing rapidly that we will also need to study seriously.
These include block chain. Its distributed ledger architecture could potentially disrupt our financial sector, a key pillar of Singapore's economy; as well as artificial intelligence, which can deliver much higher efficiencies and provide intelligence to systems, such as autonomous vehicles and drones. The Smart Nation needs to go beyond the technologies of today and prepare the population for tomorrow's disruptions too.
A November 2015 report by McKinsey explained that in a survey of 800 jobs and 2,000 activities, 45% of activities that individuals are presently paid to perform can be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies.
In a more recent report on the Future of Jobs released this January by the World Economic Forum, it was noted that in the next five years, advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning and natural user interfaces are making it possible to automate knowledge worker tasks that have long been regarded as impossible or impractical to perform.
In Singapore's context, if I take the threat of autonomous vehicles as an example, we have possibly 27,000 taxis, or 100,000 taxi vocational driver licences, and 12,000 bus driver roles at risk. If we do not manage disruption well, it is not just about losing jobs, but the compounded difficulty to match them to new jobs in the digital economy.
Given both the positive and negative aspects of these rapid developments in digital disruption, it is important that we have strategies to fully seize the opportunities presented by technological trends and mitigate undesirable outcomes.
We must also consider how do we ensure inclusivity so that our seniors and those with special needs can leverage on these technology enablers to improve the quality of living and their employability in the workforce.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Chairman, the endeavour for Singapore to be a Smart Nation is all about enabling businesses, communities and individuals to thrive and to have a better quality of life.
Underlying this will be the need for the capacity to learn, relearn, imagine, create and innovate.
To succeed in the future economy is not just about providing state-of-the-art infrastructure or the latest technologies. The difference will be the spirit of creativity and the desire to succeed. This will manifest in how all these come together to produce new products, services or new and improved ways of doing things. This innovative capacity is crucial to succeed in building a Smart Nation. Take a country like Israel which is seen as being in the forefront of technology and innovation. Israel's culture, environment and keen strategy are seen as the ingredients for its success as an innovation hub.
As Singapore strives to build a Smart Nation, ultimately, success will be determined by how our businesses and individuals embrace the opportunities, address the challenges and innovate. While the Government cannot do it all, the Government can play a significant role in providing the platforms to bring together a vibrant ecosystem where the confluence of talent, technology and diverse ideas happen and, most importantly, value is created and innovation becomes real. What platforms and initiatives will the Government be driving to enable and encourage Singaporeans and businesses to innovate, thrive and achieve better quality of life?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Chairman, Prime Minister Lee launched our Smart Nation initiative in 2014. Since then, we have been investing in infrastructure and implemented policies to build a supportive ecosystem and develop capabilities to ride upon the digital revolution.
However, there are two specific areas where I feel we can do more to enhance the experience of our people.
First, our many smart cards. Thirty years ago, we started cashless transactions with NETS. Today, it can get quite complex and troublesome: take a bus or train, use the EZ-Link card; go through the ERP, insert the Cashcard; pay for lunch, wave your credit card. And sometimes, we get stuck in the carpark because the car in front cannot clear the gantry due to incompatible card. Of course, consumers have more options for payment methods. But does it really mean more convenience? Would it be possible for us to streamline these? Can the Government take the lead to do so?
Second, mobile apps. A quick look on the App Store shows mobile applications available for download by HDB, OneService, LTA, CPF, NEA, SG-Secure and not forgetting our Singapore Parliament app.
How much money have our Ministries spent to develop and market these apps and what is the actual monthly usage of them? Is it practical and convenient for people to have to download so many apps to access different key functions offered by the Government?
Would it be more useful if we have one single main app that allows Singaporeans to retrieve key information from various Government agencies? We can log in to this app using our SingPass and -factor authentication (2FA) and there will be various tabs for different Ministries and agencies.
For example, the CPF tab could feature the member's account information and transaction history. The HDB tab, loan details and application status. The MOH tab could possibly become a platform for Singaporeans to access their critical health records and medical history. And we could even monitor our health with this app. Our recent SG Secure app's key functions can also be syncronised with this main app and key crucial notifications can be pushed out to all users in the event of an emergency or MFA travel alerts.
Mdm Chairman, Singapore's transition to a Smart Nation will help us maintain our competitive edge and be an attractive location for businesses and talents. But also important is the real productivity and convenience it brings to our lives. After all, one key goal of the Smart Nation is to enhance the lives of our citizens.
The Prime Minister also mentioned the possibility of a National Identity system at the Camp Sequoia dialogue last month. Can the Ministry share with us if this plan is already in the pipeline and what we can expect in the near future with regard to this system?
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Madam, Singapore is uniquely positioned to ride the digital wave, given our small size and the high technological sophistication of our population. We are in many ways a perfect place to test-bed new ideas and pilot and refine new ways of doing things. It is exciting to see projects, such as the testing of autonomous vehicles in various parts of the country. Such technologies could potentially revolutionise transport and urban planning globally.
I am encouraged that the Government has created an Office to pursue our Smart Nation ambitions. I would like to ask the Minister what specific initiatives the Smart Nation Programme Office will be pursuing in the next 12 months to enable Singapore to establish itself as a world leader in this field.
Other leading global cities, such as Copenhagen and Barcelona, are also competing to become THE digital city. Given that there are significant potential economic spinoffs from winning the race for talent and ideas, how do we differentiate Singapore from these other competitors?
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Chairman, many cities around the world are competing to become smart cities, for instance, in the US. The Presidential Council of Advisers for Science and Technology has put together a report on technology and the future of cities, identifying areas where new technologies have improved the lives of city residents. Dubai, on the other hand, is piloting to launch the world's first passenger-carry drone service in July this year. How are we setting ourselves apart from other cities looking to be \"smart\"?
We have identified five domains where technology could significantly change how things are done. These five domains include development of autonomous vehicles, urban smart and green solutions, electronic payments and smart solutions for active ageing. How have we progressed on these fronts?
Further, the Smart Nation initiative allows the Government to perform the role of lead demand and involves citizens and businesses in co-creating solutions to enable better living and build stronger communities. Have there been instances of private-public partnership to effectively leverage on ICT networks and big data to co-create solutions?
Ms Chia Yong Yong: Madam, once again, I declare my interest as a Board Member of SDP and SG Enable which collaborate in setting up the Tech Able at the Enabling Village.
Technology is exciting. Imagine me walking in. Imagine our glaucoma-stricken parents able to see. Imagine our parents with weak knees having the confidence that they will not fall down. Imagine our parents who are weak physically, having been at home alone and, if they suffer a cardiac arrest, there is early medical intervention. There is so much that we can do with technology, so much that we can do with enabling technology. That is what Smart Nation is about. The schemes are exciting − what they can do for our economy, what they can do for our people. But, ultimately, it goes down to what it does for an individual. That is what makes us excited about this Smart Nation, not just how good it is going to position us vis-Ã-vis other countries, but what it is going to do for each of us in our individual life.
My questions are: what are our plans under the Smart Nation initiative to use technology in enabled living? How are we building it into our homes? I know there are pilot projects. Could we have an update on the effect of the pilot projects? How do we enable living, enable employment, enable community participation by persons who are elderly or persons who have disabilities and special needs?
What plans do we have either for the Enabling Village or for other platforms to reach out to more schools and to train more professionals, and even ordinary persons, to be able to have some basic knowledge about assistive technology and, in some cases, even to provide advice on assistive technology?
How do we reach out to more persons? How do we reach out to increase the adoption of assistive technology in the whole living environment that we are in and, thereby, increase the independence of persons with disabilities? How do we break the barriers?
The Chairman:\tMinister Vivian Balakrishnan.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): I thank the Members for their vision, their imagination, especially Ms Chia Yong Yong's heartfelt plea.
We are living amidst an accelerating digital revolution. This is a revolution of a much greater intensity and scale than the previous revolution that we have lived through, and there will be profound changes: changes to the way we do business, the way we live, the way we interact, the way we mobilise, the way we socialise, politics and the way we interact with each other as well. But, let me start with a more serious note. It is also going to disrupt jobs. It is going to disrupt even hitherto safe middle-class white collar work, and it will impact wages. It will also, initially, increase inequality. Because the people and the companies and, if I may add, the nations that master the technology first, the new digital oligarchs, these people and these companies will have enormous reach because their market is the entire world.
Our political challenge is to democratise these new technologies so that it empowers all citizens to harvest opportunities in this brave new world and thereby spread the fruits of this harvest more broadly.
If you think about it, this disruption is already happening all around us. Take finance as an example. There are already artificial intelligence boards which trade funds on the soft market. These AI engines can look through far more data than a human being can, make hopefully more unbiased assessments, improve their learning algorithms over time and conduct trades in milliseconds. The same thing is happening in surgery and similar things are happening in the legal and accounting professions. And so, the top priority for Smart Nation has to be jobs, jobs, jobs.
In Singapore, protectionism and building walls are not a recipe for protecting jobs. So, our only option is to ensure that our people and our businesses have the skills needed for the digital economy. You have heard Deputy Prime Minister Teo just now explained to you. Even within Government, we have an urgent need for new specialists in areas such as cybersecurity, data analysis, software development, user interface/user experience designers and network engineering.
If you take the private sector − take Garena, which is probably one of the largest unicorns in Southeast Asia, founded and headquartered in Singapore. They run a business in digital content, e-payments and e-commerce. They are expanding rapidly throughout the region and they urgently need more people. They need more people with the skills.
But we do not just need techies and coders. We need people who can apply tech to the real world to make a real difference in addressing the needs of real people. I also agree that we need to help our businesses, our enterprises, especially our SMEs, to identify and to adopt the new technologies in order to make them more competitive. This is something which we will have to work through the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), because each industry will have its own specific needs and it is not a tech issue, it is an application of tech challenge.
Minister Yaacob will share our progress in this and how we intend to build up the talent pipeline, so that our SMEs and our large local enterprises will have the talent that they so need.
The second thing is that we need to build more integrated digital platforms. You will notice that I use the word \"integrated\". I have heard the calls for integrated Government. These platforms must provide us with the capabilities that enable innovations that benefit citizens in a real way and reduce business cost.
Let me go through a few examples. One big project we are working on now is digital identity. Digital identity or the authentication of digital identity is actually a very difficult challenge. And yet, if you think about it, it is absolutely essential if we are going to have secure transactions in the digital world.
I am glad to report that one of our home-grown companies, V-Key, has quietly been providing this technology, a very novel and interesting technology, to a wide range of companies, ranging from DBS to Alibaba. It works behind the scenes.
If you think about what we currently use today, we have got SingPass. To be honest with you, it is not good enough. And yet today, we use SingPass to file our income tax. In fact, so many of our Government interactions depend on SingPass. We need to quickly upgrade this. We need to make sure that it is good enough as a secure digital identification system.
I have asked the team to look at three features in the short term. One, to include biometric elements; two, to enable encryption; and three, to have open APIs so that SingPass is not something only used for Government, but that the infrastructure behind that is available to the private sector as well.
We need to do all these in order to engender greater confidence, to reduce transaction cost, to allow information to be exchanged securely and seamlessly to create new services and to improve customer experience. Now, the point is we can provide these platforms, but we actually have to enable our companies to ride on these platforms to derive the competitive advantage.
Another area we are working on in the next year is on e-payments. And I have heard the calls. You say we have too many cards. We all have got too many cards and, sometimes, there is the incompatibility issue, it is really irritating and inconvenient.
Today, we have got contactless credit cards, mobile payments, smart phone payments, and I agree with the Members, there is a proliferation of mobile apps as well. But yet, a very simple thing, like transferring funds from me to you securely and without cost, it is not so easy to do. For instance, if I want to transfer to you, I need to know your bank account number.
We are working with the industry to roll out a Central Addressing Scheme, which will better enable or facilitate digital cash transfers. This works like a register which maps mobile numbers to bank account numbers, or to the unique entity number of businesses. So, you can look forward to being able to use your existing mobile or Internet banking service to send funds to friends. The only thing you need to know is their phone numbers, and even if they have accounts in different banks. I know I am standing right in front of Mr Liang, and I know DBS already has Paylah!, but I want this to be open to everyone.
I also agree with Miss Cheng Li Hui's concern about the proliferation of payment modes. I agree that there is scope for consolidation. But I believe that we should consolidate at the infrastructure level, at the platform level, at the back office level, to enable compatibility. We do not need consolidation at the front office, the retail level, the front, the customer-facing side, because we want competition and we want choice for the customers. But we need interoperability so that it becomes convenient, there are lower barriers to entry and it is secure. We need to work on this duality.
We believe that having a Central Addressing Scheme is one way to get a move-on with e-payments in Singapore. We have actually been too slow in this area.
Similarly, some of you may notice that if you go to retail points, there is a Unified Point of Sale terminal. This terminal is a \"bao kar liao\" thing. It can read all kinds of cards, all different technologies, including magnetic stripes, EMV chips and NFC chips.
We are taking a similar approach for transport and we are piloting account-based ticketing. Commuters can also use their contactless MasterCard and not just have to find the right EZ-Link cards for travel. If this is successful, we will bring this on board and bring in other payment providers as well. Again, to make it easier, to make it more convenient.
For Government apps, I take the point that we want platform unification. But I am not sure we need everyone to use the \"mother of all apps\". In fact, I have told the Government departments that if someone else from the private sector comes up with a better and more effective app that makes available Government services, we should encourage that. We should not allow the Government to have the monopoly on app production to access Government services.
Another example is that we also need to get away from the agency-centric approach. There is an LTA app, NEA app and so on and so forth. We have to look at it through a more citizen-centric model. One way which MOF is looking at is to group them by milestones. When you were born, what services do you need? When you have a child, or when you go to hospital or when you work, they are moments in life; and you can cluster these services, make it more citizen-centric rather than agency-centric.
Another thing which we are working on − in fact, the Prime Minister has been pushing − is this concept of Open Data. The Government has lots and lots of data, including real-time data, down to the location of every bus and taxi. We want to make this data available for free for everyone.
Let me give you some examples. If you are on Facebook, you go to Messenger, search for this chatbot called \"BusUncle\". It is not written by the Government. It was written by someone who did not like the interface for bus arrival times. So, this is a chatbot, you just send a message, it will tell you when the bus is coming and he does it in a very quirky Singaporean way. Go and check that out.
But actually, the real interesting thing about this chatbot is the fact that, beneath it, it is accessing real time LTA data for free. This is an example where providing Government data, having open data and allowing the private sector to ride on top of it, creates a whole new level of services that we could not have imagined or we could not have delivered with such style.
In fact, today, public transport data is downloaded about 16 million times a day. Most of this is by commuters who are checking bus arrival times on their apps. By freeing data, we believe, we enable businesses and citizens to innovate, to develop new products that will serve their own needs. We can still allow proliferation at the front end and at the top end, but let us create common platforms and open data underneath it.
I will give another example. From today, this is being launched by Grab, there is GrabShuttle. I am afraid it is another app, or maybe it is another side feature of the app. What this does is that it allows commuters to crowd-start their new routes. You can pre-book seats on 15 selected routes and these are identified using data from a \"crowd-starting\" platform − developed and provided by GovTech. You can use this to enable private bus operators to use the same analytics to improve the fleet management and operations, including the tracking of punctuality of drivers.
The real issue is this. Private transport is from point to point. Public transport is hub to hub and then you have a last-mile issue. If you can make it smart, public transport can be revolutionised to be point to point, responsive and in real time. That is how we can get a revolution to make public transport the preferred mode of transport and how we can get higher throughput without increasing our roads to more than the 12% of land that they already take. This is an example where we need to push harder and faster.
While we do all these − make data available, allow people to ride on it, allow new programmes, the e-payments digital identity − do not forget that cybersecurity is an absolute pre-requisite. Our critical control systems need to be protected, even if we make them smart. Members have just heard the recent breach in the MINDEF system. I hope this now emphasises the point that when we decided to have Internet Segregation of the Public Service, it was absolutely the right decision. Otherwise, that breach could potentially have led to breaches of internal control and secure systems. I can assure Members that our civil servants still continue to be able to serve the Net. For instance, in my Ministry, we have ensured that Wireless@SG is pervasive throughout the building. Everyone can continue to surf on their tablets, phones or on separate computers. So, civil servants are not cut off from the Internet.
We need to bear in mind the fact that we need a renewed sense of urgency to uncover new possibilities to work across bureaucratic boundaries and to be willing to disrupt ourselves. Let me give you another example from land use planning. This is complex. From time to time, you come up here and you give speeches about how there are missing gaps in covered walkways and so on and so forth, because different people own different pieces of land. Many agencies are involved in this. I believe that the old way of coordination in a top-down fashion, although it can be facilitated to some extent by email, is still not the optimal way to organise it.
URA developed ePlanner, a one-stop digital portal that aggregates large volumes of geospatial data and it supports planners from 25 different partner agencies who can now collectively access and analyse land use planning information and make decisions objectively on the basis of data, not on the basis of opinion. This has transformed land use planning within the Government.
We also intend to make sure that we can serve the public better, faster and cheaper. Another example is, in June last year, URA revamped the URA SPACE, which is an online map portal that consolidates detailed land use information, including private property-related information. One example of an e-service is that it allows businesses to check the allowable and approved uses for private shophouses. In the past, you would have had to fill up a form, send it in, wait seven days for a response. Today, with this portal, the answer is instantaneous and − my favourite word – free! Not many cities in the world can do this, because it involves intense integration at the backend. We need more examples like this. In the digital world, you think about it, the short-run marginal cost − different from the long-run marginal cost − of serving the next customer, trends towards zero. Whether you serve one or you serve a million, your marginal cost has not gone up but your unit cost goes down considerably. We need our public agencies to systematically eliminate application forms, streamline processes, streamline information flow. That is the way we can reduce fees for routine services by working smarter.
I also totally agree with Ms Chia Yong Yong, Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Dr Teo Ho Pin yesterday on the need for digital inclusion, especially for the elderly and the disabled. We are not far away from the day, Yong Yong, when you will walk in here with an exo-skeleton, perhaps. If there is a place we can start, it should be Singapore.
For homes, we are piloting remote monitoring solutions in places like Yuhua, Marine Parade and Bedok. This will allow family or caregivers to be able to monitor the activity, security and health of the seniors and to have peace of mind.
We are also promoting the use of assistive technologies. We have set up Tech Able in the Enabling Village which I think you might be familiar with. This is a one-stop resource centre on assistive technologies and devices for people with disabilities, for caregivers, therapists and social service professionals.
Tech Able has reached out to about 3,000 people thus far. MOE also provides dedicated funding for special education schools to procure computer facilities courseware and other assistive technology. We will also focus on digital inclusion in our community centres. Members have heard about the Silver Infocomm Initiative, and this is a way. Even when people do not own any smart phones, cannot use technology and we have to handhold, train, provide so that everyone can ride on this.
Finally, let me answer this question on what sets us apart. What is our unique selling point or competitive advantage? I believe we are approaching this from a position of strength. We continue to offer one of the best digital infrastructures in the world. Second, our people are well-educated, well-trained and tech-savvy. Third, we have only a single layer of Government. And we have a Prime Minister who can code, a Prime Minister who certainly gets it, who is a mystery customer on many Government websites. If it is a complaint, it is usually, especially a smart complaint, it is almost always the Prime Minister.
The key here is not just tech innovation but policy innovation and the spirit of internal disruption and the willingness to rewrite regulations, absorb ideas. Another thing in which we want to be different is to feed our own start-ups by buying their services; and to be a test bed for novel solutions, for urban solutions and, especially, including in areas like fintech, transport, healthcare, homecare and social services.
To conclude, we need to urgently build skills and capabilities in our people and enterprises. We need to ensure pole position, with the best infrastructure in the world, we need to be prepared to fundamentally disrupt the way the Government provides services. We need to forge new partnerships with the private sector, we need to make sure our start-ups, especially, have access to technology and opportunities, and we need to be open to the global flow of talent and ideas.
Ultimately, this is not about technology but really about maximising future job options and ensuring a better quality of life and an inclusive society. Our vision is that a visitor to Singapore should come, look, experience and say, \"I have seen the future and it works.\"
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Chairman, in the 1940s to 1960s, Singapore enjoyed what was called the post-war Baby Boom and it was common to find families with large numbers of children, with TFR peaking at 6.56 in 1957.
Generally, though, there is inverse correlation between development and TFR. The countries with the highest TFR now are the sub-Saharan African countries, while the developed countries are at the low end of the spectrum.
Likewise, for Singapore, TFR has declined steadily from the 1950s and 1960s, reaching a historic low of 1.15 in 2010. Subsequent years have seen the rate rise above 1.19, with highs of 1.29 in 2012 and 1.25 in 2014.
Anecdotally, I understand that the incentives given to encourage marriage and parenthood have been helpful. In speaking to young parents, affordable and convenient childcare is high on the priority list of necessities as it is becoming more common for families to have working parents and grandparents.
The most important generation now in this area is probably the millennials, that is, those born in the 1980s and early 1990s, as they would be in the prime years for marriage and parenting.
What are the attitudes of our millennials towards marriage and parenthood? Is there anything more we can do to support young Singaporeans in achieving marriage and parenthood aspirations, a club I recently joined myself?
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Madam, becoming new citizens of a nation is a critical decision. It is a process that involves the interaction and integration between the new immigrants and the receiving community or society. This can be done at the individual or collective level. The policies of a nation represent the litmus test for integration and citizenship approval.
Our guidelines and policies must acknowledge our diversity and uphold unity, recognise the importance of local content and have a realistic framework, both at the national and community levels.
New citizens can, indeed, have positive contributions towards nation building and social integration. Will our current appointment model and processes be reviewed and tweaked, in particular, to have a greater community involvement component? This may include, firstly, performance of voluntary and community services which helps in immersion and integration with the community one lives in; and secondly, getting active and senior grassroots as well as community leaders to nominate or become assenters for the potential new citizens.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chairperson, new citizens undergo the Singapore Citizenship journey (SCJ) so as to familiarise them with our national norms, culture, history and institutions. However, I am concerned about the possibility of one-sidedness in the political education exposure that new citizens receive.
In the SCJ HOME for new citizens guide, there are brief overviews of our political system explaining the role of elections, Parliament and so on. However, two matters stand out that are of concern.
Firstly, in the SCJ community sharing sessions, new citizens and prospective new citizens are exposed to grassroots organisations under the People's Association (PA)'s umbrella. In the course of the SCJ process, such as citizenship ceremonies, for example, they are exposed to and may get to meet People's Action Party politicians but not politicians from other parties.
Secondly, I have met a few new citizens who have told me that they are concerned that their citizenship will be taken away if they did not vote for the People's Action Party. One example stands out in my mind. One older new citizen who is highly educated in credential, told me that he supported more balance and competition in our system but was afraid that if he voted for the Workers' Party, the Government would find out and take away his citizenship. We spent 10 minutes trying to explain the process by which votes are kept secret. At the end of the 10 minutes, I am not sure if we had convinced him.
Will the Government find ways to expose new citizens to members of other political parties and, more importantly, will it include an element of education to train them how their votes are kept secret in the electoral process? I could not find this being treated at all in the HOME for new citizens guidebook. If it is in doubt, can we conduct a study to ascertain whether the new citizens truly understand that their votes are kept secret?
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mdm Chairman, with concerns of a difficult economy and job market, there will certainly be a negative impact on our population growth. It has become more pressing than ever, now that we are tackling the existing issues that are putting Singaporeans off raising children.
Citing high costs of living and personal ambitions, there are more mothers who wish that they are able to continue their careers with minimal disruption. More women are returning to the workforce and, with the higher retirement age, even grandparents are giving up babysitting duties for jobs. All this spells good for our labour force, but it gives rise to the pressing need to build up our caregiving support system for infants and young children, allowing young parents to have a safe haven to deposit their children while they focus on bringing the bread home.
The Government has done a lot to make childcare services more accessible for all parents. But there is always room for improvement. Lack of vacancies in some of the more populated estates is a common grouse. Sometimes, this is because of the mismatch between demand and supply. I have had parents coming to say that they have had to put their children on year-long waiting lists, sometimes even longer. Moreover, lately, some childcare centres have been in the headlines for improper handling of their young charges, and this can create a misconception about the state of childcare services in Singapore. I would like to ask the Government what are the plans to improve the availability and to ensure the quality of childcare support for our young parents. How does the Ministry gauge the demand before it begins building these childcare centres?
On the other hand, some parents prefer to keep their young children at home for a variety of reasons. Some do this because there is no vacancy in centres within a convenient location. Others do it because it is almost impossible to coordinate their work schedule with the centre's hours. Perhaps, the child has underlying conditions that make it difficult for him or her to spend long hours outside the home with a large group of children. We cannot dismiss the concerns of this group of parents. How can we help them find adequately-trained caregivers to care for the child in the comfort of a home? Can we tap on SkillsFuture Credit to attend such courses for the residents?
The Government has already implemented a slew of measures to encourage flexible working hours that are meant for catering to a family-friendly model. While the public sector may have dutifully abided by these measures, not all private companies will follow suit. In fact, some consider it a hassle and are unable to cope with what they perceive as a manpower shortage. In fact, flexible work hours do not necessarily have anything to do with reducing working hours. It is to do with changing our work habits to improve productivity and work-life balance. What can be done to transform the employers' mindset and get more employers from the private sector on board?
And while we are on the subject of working hours, some childcare centres only operate the same hours as a typical office employee's working hours. Many employees are unable to knock off on the dot, and even so, they cannot fully teleport themselves to the centre to pick up their child on time.
The Chairman:\tPlease wind up your speech, Dr Lim.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: How can we provide more help for these parents to cope with these challenges?
Ms Sun Xueling: Mdm Chairman, the stork flew often to the northeast in 2016, delivering bundles of joy to families in Punggol, Sengkang and Pasir Ris. On average, nine babies were born every day to residents of Punggol in 2016, accounting for 10% of Singaporean babies born last year. Perhaps, arising from all this baby goodness, I had a baby myself and attended several 100-day baby showers with my loved one on my hip.
At 100 days old, the babies were just cherubic enough to undergo a baby massage, participate in baby gym and be dressed in bunny outfits. The mummies had organised the baby showers all by themselves, sometimes involving a hundred babies at one go. They set up Facebook groups, discussed via whatsapp, sometimes in the middle of the night as they fed their babies and looked to one another for mutual support.
It was a time of bliss, of sisterhood and camaraderie. But as the maternity leave started coming to an end, the worries started coming in.
\"Grandma's too far away in Ang Mo Kio (or Hougang, or Serangoon) and she would rather get together with her friends than take care of baby\", they say. \"My maternity leave is for four months and I need to go back to work urgently in this economic climate. There is no available infantcare spot in Punggol, given the large number of infants here. What do I do?\", \"MOE is starting up some kindergartens in Punggol but I work and need a childcare spot, not kindergarten.\", \"Infantcare or childcare closes at 7.00 pm and I am fined for every 15 minutes I am late picking up my child. But I cannot leave work early. So, I am late all the time and my child is starving by the time I get to her. I feel like a bad mum all the time. What do I do?\"
Of stress, uncertainty and conflict. Of solutions available to young parents but not quite solving the problem. Of gaps between options that leave young parents in a bind.
Can we start looking at policies in a continuous spectrum to help young parents, where solutions are available every step of the way mirroring the decisions they have to make as baby grows up?
For instance, can there be more infantcare options in new towns, given the mismatch in demand and supply even as the Ministry has announced an increase in infantcare positions? Further, can MOE also undertake childcare provision, since it is childcare that young parents most desperately need and want, and not kindergartens? Can infantcare progression to childcare be seamless and not cause parents to fret, queuing for a spot every few years? Can a community of caregivers be trained to help young parents pick up their child or provide a hot meal when they are caught up?
Large cohorts of the children of the Baby Boomers are entering their child-bearing years. It would be a loss to their joy as a family if inconveniences and uncertainty stop them from having children. It would also be a loss to the state.
Can we pull the Government machinery together to offer seamless solutions for our young families? We must try. For then, we can pop the confetti and celebrate, and bring on the baby showers.
The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): During the COS last year, I spoke of offering alternative childcare options other than care centres and familial support, which not everyone has. Just earlier today, I received yet another plea from a resident who fretted over finding a childcare placement for her child because the childcare centre at her void deck had put her on a waiting list of at least 50, and the other childcare centres were either too expensive or too far away. I also suggested taping on experienced community nannies and how the Government can help to better match supply and demand.
Building on what I spoke about last year, I would like to ask if the NPTD had studied possible alternative childcare options and, if so, what were the findings? Does the Government have plans to implement some of the alternatives found to be viable?
Parents naturally want the best for our children. Some of the key considerations that parents have when deciding on childcare are safety and curriculum quality.
Nobel-winning economist James Heckman and researchers at the University of Chicago and University of Southern California found that high quality early childhood development programmes can deliver an annual return of 13% per child on upfront costs through better outcomes in education, health, employment and social behaviour in the decades that follow. Making sure that a child is properly cared for and engaged not only ensures the child's well-being, it also strengthens our country's workforce and prepares future generations to be competitive in the future global economy.
Therefore, if childcare alternatives, such as community nannies, are to be implemented, how does the Government intend to ensure that children in these alternative care settings will also receive quality and safe care, such that these alternatives become viable options for parents who need but cannot secure centre-based childcare services?
A key factor driving couples' decision on when to have children is when they can secure their own homes. This is understandable. Having a child is a life-changing decision and a lifetime commitment. Naturally, couples want to make sure that they achieve a certain security so that they can better focus on raising the child.
The Government continues to supply new flats and, eventually, supply will meet demand. But there is always a lag of three to four years because of the time needed to build the flats after the ballot. With couples marrying later in life, each day that passes by in waiting is a precious opportunity wasted to have a child. In Singapore, where our TFR is far from ideal, this is no doubt a big challenge that we must solve, and it can be solved.
The introduction of the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS)was a wonderful scheme that addresses this challenge. But it is not fully utilised and I understand that there are still PPHS flats waiting to be taken. Instead of leaving them empty, could we offer PPHS to first-timer married couples who were unsuccessful in balloting for a flat but had already participated in the ballots, say, twice?
At my recent MPS, I met a couple in their late 30s. They found each other late in life and so got married late. But the biological clock is frantically ticking away. They are anxious. They balloted for a flat twice but were unsuccessful. They cannot live in either of their parents' place due to serious space constraints and other sensitive considerations. I feel for them. For couples like them, who are sincere and anxious to have children soon, should we not help them?
Lest couples become disincentivised to continue balloting for a flat and settle for a PPHS rental unit instead, the Government could build in a condition stating that they can have the unit for a year, renewable for another year maximum, and they must book a flat within this period. If they successfully book one within the period, they can continue to live in the flat till their own flat is ready.
The joy of having a child cannot be measured by any tangible means and the decision to have a child must come from the heart. The Government cannot decide for couples, but the Government can certainly help by removing barriers and catalysing the making of families.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chairman, I have always believed that it is a personal choice as to whether or not one has children. I have made that choice and I can honestly say that my two children are an amazing blessing as they bring so much joy to myself and my wife.
It is also true that having and raising a child does have its challenging moments, especially when they are very young. However, I believe that if we can enhance the experience of families with young children and infants, then this would not only give them much needed support, it could also encourage them to have more children.
Much has been done by the NPTD and MSF to provide support in infantcare, childcare and student care. My colleagues, Ms Sun Xueling and Ms Tin Pei Ling, have also raised some suggestions in this area. But I would like to focus on how perhaps more could also be done in the area of providing housing options for families with infants and young children.
I believe that priority is already given to families in HDB's BTO scheme and there is the PPHS that Ms Tin Pei Ling mentioned earlier, for those who already have a flat but are waiting for their flat to arrive. However, I understand that there is not enough smaller PPHS flats to meet the needs of these young couples and young families, and while they would be willing to consider the larger PPHS flats, they find that these flats are out of their budget.
I would like to urge NPTD to work with HDB to see if it would be possible to allow couples and those with small families to rent the larger PPHS flats at a lower rate if there are such empty flats available. I believe this could be a win-win situation that will allow smaller family units to rent these flats, while ensuring that these flats do not remain empty and unused. I hope that NPTD can consider this suggestion.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines):\tMdm Chairman, work is central to most of us and influences much of our lives, including raising families. Work and the resultant time left for children is a critical factor in families' decision for children. Thus, transforming our workplaces and how we work can help to tackle Singapore's fertility issues. The technological revolution challenges us to explore new frontiers for flexible work arrangements (FWA).
We should and must now ride on the technological advances and make technology-enabled FWA more pervasive. For example, telecommuting is now more accessible through cloud services and video conferencing. Customer enquiries can be handled away from office. Employee scheduling software takes away the tedium of rostering. I encourage the Government to enhance the Work-Life Grant and share technological solutions with companies, especially the smaller SMEs, to boost FWA adoption.
We can also develop more shared working spaces in community spaces and heartlands for caregivers to work away from the office. Our libraries and some community clubs already have them, but building a larger network of such spaces can even provide companies with more options to engage their employees.
Getting companies to change can take time. In the meantime, we can develop a marketplace for Government and Singapore companies to put up \"gigs\" or smaller jobs and projects that caregivers can do away from home. In effect, an upwork.com version for Singapore. These gigs or micro jobs can be consulting projects, accounts, helping with customer service replies or even social services.
Our current paid caregiving leave structure is rather disjointed. A parent has six days of childcare leave until the child becomes seven years old when she only gets two days. Yet, the child's health and independence is a gradual one. Let us help our parents to transit.
I propose a \"6−4−2\" system. Childcare leave is progressively reduced from six days when a child is 0-6 years old, four days from 7-9 years old, and to two days from 10-12 years old. This system allows parents to gradually transit in their caregiving until their child matures.
It also helps families with more than one child. Currently, they get two days when their children are in Primary school. Yet, the needs of a lower Primary and an upper Primary child can be rather different.
The most resistance, ultimately, to working flexibly is cultural.
We must practise progressive senior leadership, building a nurturing environment of trust and mindset are critical in transforming our workplaces.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, in a small nation like Singapore whereby our population is our main resource, we must do what we can to encourage parenthood, while at the same time, ensuring that our labour force is not facing a manpower crunch. This is why flexible work arrangements (FWAs) must be the way to go.
My wife and I have three young children. I just want to share that in deciding to move from the second to the third child, to be honest, the flexible work arrangement my wife experienced was a significant factor for us to move from two to three.
However, FWA is often misunderstood. Some employers think it simply means shorter working hours and more days off for the employee in question, and they lament the shortage of staff that this results in. In worst cases, they discriminate and refuse to hire people whom they think are prone to requiring FWAs. So, it is imperative that we transform employers' mindsets so that they are willing to embrace this style of working and incorporate it in their workplaces.
I note that according to MOM's Conditions of Employment survey, the situation is improving. The results indicate that the proportion of firms which provided unplanned time-off or ad hoc teleworking for their employees rose from 70% in 2015 to 77% last year. The proportion of employees working in firms offering at least one formal FWA rose from 65% in 2016 to 67% last year. This is a positive indication, but we can do more to nudge the other about 30% to get on board, especially the local SMEs.
Under the Work-Life Grant, employers receive grants and reimbursements, and they may even engage consultants to help create and implement good work-life strategies for the company. However, companies must apply and, in the first place, if they have misconceptions about FWA, they would not be proactive about it.
Currently, under the Development Grant, employers receive $10,000 for piloting at least two new FWAs or substantially enhancing existing FWAs. Under the FWA incentive, employers get $10,000 for the first five Singaporean employees utilising FWAs. I propose making exceptions for the SMEs. Let them start slow, with one FWA and perhaps two Singaporean employees utilising FWA to allow them to benefit from the grants. Taking the first step is always the hardest. If the step is too high, many people will not even have the ability to clear it.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Let me first congratulate the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng and his wife, Amy, on the birth of their twins. May the two lovely girls grow in health and be full of the same fighting spirit that their father has.
There is one instinct that is more powerful than even that of survival, and it is the instinct that comes with parenthood. From my own limited experience with my wife, parenthood sometimes brings out the superhuman in you. Suddenly, you find yourself faster running after the kids, stronger carrying both squirming boys at once, braver standing up to the pesky cockroach in the kitchen and perhaps somewhat wiser as well.
But it will be untruthful of me to just paint parenthood and family life as just being a bed of roses. There are, definitely, downtimes when you feel insufficient, deficient even, unworthy. Having kids sometimes frustrates your plans, changes your lifestyle, cramps your style, messes up your hair, ruffles your feathers. But for the vast majority of parents, watching your little ones sleep peacefully, grow up healthily and in wisdom, there can be no greater reward for those sacrifices.
Yet, in spite of the many joys of parenthood, the Prime Minister said at the recent Camp Sequoia dialogue that babies are one of the many issues that keeps him awake at night. Not that he is kept awake by bawling babies in the next room but by the general lack of babies in Singapore. In reality, it should be an issue that all Singaporeans should be worrying about as well.
But this is not for the lack of incentives, as we have heard from many speakers before – more infant care centres, compulsory paternity leave, flexi-work arrangements, baby bonus and housing incentives.
Short of going to the extreme, as the town of Overtornea, Sweden, is considering − paid time off once a week for municipal workers to pro-create − we cannot possibly be pumping endless cash and other incentives. What we lack today is no longer the how, but the why. We have assumed for a long time that cost is one of the prime reasons why birth rates are low, but we have addressed these concerns with a very generous package.
I have argued in previous Budgets why we cannot reach a stage where we literally get paid to start families. That runs counter to the idea of family in the first place. We can support but we cannot over incentivise.
What Singapore needs today is for us to realise that family is a key cornerstone for stability in our lives. A mindset change that we accept that parents have a special responsibility and should be supported by the wider community. Employers to know that a flustered mother turning up half hour late for work after struggling through the rain to send her kids to childcare is not taking advantage.
What can the Ministry do in working with families, community groups and religious organisations even, to play a larger part? It takes a village. And when we call for more, can the village also play a bigger role?
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Chairman, I thank Members for their insightful suggestions and questions.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo spoke about managing our strategic resources, and there are none more precious than our people. At Strategy Group in PMO, we work closely with agencies to bring the Government together on our national priorities, including to achieve a sustainable population and to strengthen our Singapore Family.
Our key priority is to provide strong support for marriage and parenthood. At the same time, we welcome those who are committed to Singapore and are able to contribute to society as new residents.
There are about 2.2 million citizens today in the prime working ages of 20 to 64 years. Without immigration, the size of this segment of our population will fall by close to 10%, or about 200,000 by 2030. With current immigration rates, we are able to maintain the size of the citizen population in the prime working ages at about 2.1-2.2 million.
Members will agree that the composition of our population matters as much as size. One useful indicator is the Old-Age Support Ratio (OASR) which refers to the number of working-age citizens for every citizen aged 65 years and above. Our OASR will decline from five today to two in 2030. This is the decline with current immigration rate. Without immigration, the decline would be steeper.
A diminishing OASR has serious implications, including on the economic vitality we hope future generations of Singaporeans can enjoy. But this is not a challenge unique to Singapore. Besides Japan and South Korea which are also ageing rapidly, China will see its OASR halved from 7.1 in 2015 to about 3.6 in 2030. Our closest neighbour Malaysia and Thailand will similarly see sharp declines in their OASRs. A recent article in The Economist suggested that these countries may, in time to come, need millions of immigrants to bring about a better population balance.
However, as Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef alluded to, immigration is a sensitive matter that has to be carefully managed. It is not, and must not, be a numbers game. Besides achieving a better population balance, we must consider the ability of new citizens to assimilate into our Singaporean family, which is itself increasingly diverse in origin and outlook.
Because of this, we conduct regular reviews of our immigration framework. All PR and citizenship applications are assessed carefully and holistically. For example, we take into account various markers of social integration, including the applicant's family ties to Singaporeans, their family profile and length of residency in Singapore. We also consider the applicant's economic contributions, qualifications, age and other relevant factors.
We encourage all who wish to join the Singapore family to engage with and participate actively in their local communities, but this should not be done purely as a means to obtain citizenship. All new citizens participate in the Singapore Citizenship Journey (SCJ), which Mr Leon Perera talked about. Mr Perera knows, as well as I do, that there are no restrictions as to which constituency new citizens can live in and which political parties they can associate with. For all citizens, we leave the decision to individuals whether and which political parties they wish to learn more about. If this is how new citizens feel they can integrate into Singapore society, they are free to do so.
In any case, keeping in mind the importance of integration, the Government kept the pace of immigration stable. In 2016, 22,102 Singapore Citizenships and 31,050 Permanent Residencies were granted. The vast majority of adult new citizens have lived in Singapore for five years or more prior to naturalisation, contributing to Singapore society in various ways. Members will note that with this pace of immigration, we are just maintaining and not growing the citizen population in the prime working ages.
This is also why we place priority on making Singapore a Great Place for Families, where young Singaporeans feel confident that marriage and parenthood are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated. This will be the main focus of my response to Members' cuts.
Last year, we had 23,873 citizen marriages, an increase from our Golden Jubilee Year. Citizen births fell slightly to 33,161, even though I know some Members of the House have done your part. Thank you very much. However, this slightly lower figure is still slightly higher than the average in the past 10 years of about 32,000 babies. Our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) fell to 1.2, from 1.24 a year ago, due in large part to a larger cohort of young Singaporeans who are now entering the peak childbearing ages of 25-39 years, but who have not yet started having children.
Mr Vikram Nair asked about the attitudes of young Singaporeans who are approaching the peak marriage and parenthood ages. He will be pleased to know that Singaporean millennials − those in their mid-teens to early 30s − still have strong aspirations to marry and start families. According to our survey last year, 83% of single millennials want to get married. Among married respondents, 92% want to have at least two children.
We have identified three key areas which will help Singaporean millennials turn these aspirations into reality. These are: faster access to public housing; more affordable and quality pre-school services; and greater workplace and community support.
At this COS, we are announcing a package of enhancements that are a significant boost to family formation for Singaporean millennials. Together with the parental leave enhancements that will take effect this year, these measures will help young Singaporean couples get a place of their own earlier, have better peace of mind in caring for their babies and enjoy better workplace and community support in their parenthood journeys. We expect the enhancements to benefit about 25,000 families annually.
Let me start with housing. Due in large part to the success of our public housing programme, many couples now aspire to own their own homes before they start a family. We support this aspiration through several policies.
For example, the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS) gives priority allocation of new flats to first-timer married couples who are already parents but the PPS also offers the same benefit to couples who are not yet parents but are expecting a child. Last year, first-timer PPS applicants were twice as likely to be successful in their BTO and SBF flat applications as compared to first-timer non-PPS applicants.
Over 80% of first-timers buy new rather than resale flats. Today, the average waiting time for BTO completion is three to four years which Ms Tin Pei Ling noted. If these couples need their own place urgently, the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) provides interim rental housing at below market rates. As pointed out by Mr Darryl David and Ms Tin, PPHS has, indeed, been a helpful scheme for parents. So far, it has benefited about 2,000 families, and 400 babies have been born to families living in PPHS flats.
Later in the debate, Minister Lawrence Wong will outline plans to provide some BTO flats with shorter waiting times. We will also share plans to enhance the PPHS to help more couples who want to live on their own while waiting for their BTO flats, including improving their affordability, as Mr Darryl David had hoped.
For couples who do not wish to wait or prefer to live near their parents, a good option is resale flats which about 20% of all first-timers have bought. At the Budget Speech last week, the Finance Minister announced enhancements to the CPF Housing Grant. Couples buying resale flats can, henceforth, enjoy up to $110,000 in grants.
With shorter waiting times, more accessible PPHS flats and higher resale grants in place, more couples will be able to enjoy a place of their own faster. But I urge couples not to delay planning as a result. There are many worthy pursuits in life and, if marriage and parenthood are to feature at all, they have to be prioritised earlier rather than later. As I have said before, please do not wait till it is too late.
Second, let me turn to pre-school. It is an area in which we will strengthen support for parents − childcare and, particularly, in the care of infants. Today, many infants up to 18 months old are cared for at home by family members. This is usually the mother or grandparent, sometimes with support from a domestic helper.
However, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak noted, more women and grandparents are entering or remaining in the workforce. This is a positive development which adds to the vibrancy and depth of experience in our economy. But it also means a growing need for care of infants outside of homes. Today, a relatively small proportion of infants, 8%, are enrolled in centre-based infant care, but the satisfaction levels of these parents are as high as those whose infants are cared for at home.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will meet the growing demand for centre-based infant care by increasing capacity to over 8,000 places in the next few years. The increased capacity will provide for around one in five newborns. Minister Tan Chuan-Jin will share more.
While we ramp up capacity, we will, at the same time, maintain quality. The new Early Childhood Development Centres Bill, which was passed earlier this week, will help ensure greater consistency and standards across the whole sector. Childcare service provision has expanded considerably. I wish to assure Dr Lim Wee Kiak that ECDA also recognises the importance of matching supply to demand and will seek improvements in this area.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Tin Pei Ling have pointed out that some families still prefer their infants to be cared for at home and asked how we might strengthen support for home-based care. It is a valid point. It is, therefore, heartening that NTUC's SEED Institute, which has trained many of our early childhood educators, will now look at sharing their expertise to help train domestic helpers. SEED has collaborated with healthcare professionals from KK Women's and Children's Hospital to pilot an infant care training course for domestic helpers employed by families with young infants. The course will equip these domestic helpers with the basic know-how to care for and interact with infants, with a focus on safety and hygiene, which are the key concerns of parents. It also includes a module to help both the employers and their helpers establish a common understanding of how the infant should be cared for.
SEED and KK Hospital plan to offer 100 training places through this pilot. If the response is positive, the pilot could be scaled up. Other caregivers, such as nannies, babysitters or even parents themselves who wish to receive caregiving training, can use their SkillsFuture credits to attend several infant and childcare courses already available in the market.
Turning now to workplace support. Besides housing and childcare, the third important area of focus is workplace support. Millennials, both men and women, want to have meaningful careers and fulfilling family lives. Indeed, both sets of aspirations are worthy of support. I share Ms Sun Xueling's view that we should look at support from the lens of a young parent and plug the gaps so that the transitions at each stage of the parenthood journey can be more seamless, and young parents can manage both family and work successfully.
Take parental leave, for example. We have introduced a number of enhancements in recent years which are welcomed by parents. From this year, the law provides for a second week of paternity leave. Enhancements to shared parental leave and adoption leave will also come into effect in July. Parents are happy to have more time to care for and bond with their infants, and fathers can also play a bigger role in raising their newborns, all while remaining in employment.
However, even with the latest enhancements, the return to regular work may still be tough for those without strong family support and who need centre-based infant care.
Today, both working parents, together, can enjoy 20 weeks of paid leave in the first year after their child is born, and two weeks of unpaid leave. Even though infant care centres are able to take in babies from the time they are two months old, most parents feel more confident when their babies are about six months or 26 weeks old. For such parents, there could be a caregiving gap of around four weeks.
We want to provide better workplace support for these parents, while balancing the need for businesses to adjust to the recent parental leave enhancements. Therefore, the public sector will take the lead to pilot a scheme to close the potential caregiving gap.
Under this pilot, public sector officers and their spouses will be guaranteed six months of parental leave per couple. From July this year, the Public Service will provide an additional four weeks of unpaid infant care leave per parent, to be taken within the child's first year. This means that as long as one parent is working in the Public Service, the couple can have up to 26 weeks of leave, or six months, between them.
Members may ask if the additional leave can be paid rather than unpaid. Our observation is that even with paid parental leave, some parents have not been utilising them in full. Some do not need all the leave provided; others face pressures at work that prevent them from taking more parental leave. Further paid leave does not benefit these parents. Instead, parents want better assurance of workplace support, that they can take all their parental leave provisions if they need them.
This is why we have decided that the main objectives of the pilot in the Public Service are to test the general viability of longer parental leave and to require all supervisors to facilitate such leave. Under this pilot, supervisors in the public sector, which includes Ministries and Statutory Boards, will no longer be able to say \"maybe yes, maybe no\". The leave provision is gender-neutral. Both male and female public officers are eligible to apply. As long as they have been given reasonable notice, supervisors will have to accede to all applications for such parental leave and make the necessary work adjustments.
The public sector pilot will also be for a longer period of three years so that we can adequately test the impact of longer parental leave in a variety of work settings. These experiences will be useful in assessing whether a nation-wide rollout is practicable in future.
But I would like to add a word of caution here. We should not under-estimate the challenges of such a move. As it is, some employers face great difficulty in accommodating staff with childcare needs. Some parents also tell us of the pushback they experience from co-workers. Extending parental leave can, unwittingly, be an added source of tension at the workplace. Therefore, I hope Members will help to rally support for the pilot and give us suggestions on how we can improve its chances of success. Needless to say, while we are piloting this measure in the public sector only, we hope some private sector companies will also join in to lead the way.
I should also add that parental leave provisions can only do so much. As many Members have pointed out, what employees want, increasingly, is flexibility. I thank Mr Desmond Choo for his suggestions on how technology can be an enabler for this.
MOM has a useful way of thinking about flexible work arrangements (FWAs) − flexi-time, flexi-place and flexi-load. The data shows that two in three employees worked in companies that provided at least one form of FWAs. Anecdotally, however, as Mr Saktiandi Supaat has suggested, many employees do not feel the impact of such support. In any case, our survey last year revealed that eight in 10 married respondents cited having FWAs as an important consideration when deciding which company to join. So, it appears that companies still have some catching up to do.
The Government will continue to support them through various resources, including MOM's Work-Life Grant, which provides up to $160,000 to help companies implement FWAs. More recently, the tripartite partners have published an advisory which guides companies through the process of introducing FWAs. MOM is studying ways to encourage more companies to come on board and will share more details later in the year.
Let me now turn to community support. I agree with Mr Alex Yam that Government action alone cannot bring about a mindset change. They say it takes a village to raise a child. And, in Singapore, we want the entire kampong to chip in.
Supportive communities can greatly enrich family life. Take, for example, the Trivelis Babies group, a ground-up initiative by residents of Trivelis estate in Clementi. The group started when a few young parents were looking for mutual support in their parenthood journeys, and has grown organically to about 150 members. What was originally a \"virtual kampong\" to exchange child-minding tips is now a fairly tight community that comes together regularly to celebrate the Mid-autumn Festival or dress up for Halloween parties.
The People's Association (PA) has some ideas on how we can bring communities together to celebrate families in a bigger way. They dovetail nicely with the many 100-day showers Ms Sun Xueling has attended. PA will share more in a few weeks. We also have plans to make our public transportation more family-friendly. MOT will give more details at next week's debate. With your permission, Mdm Chairman, I would like to speak in Mandarin now.
The Chairman:\tYes, please proceed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Chairman, we are committed to \"Making Singapore a Great Place for Families\".
To better support millennial families, we will adopt a three-pronged approach to encourage Singaporeans to form families and have children earlier.
First, housing. From the feedback gathered, we know that many Singaporeans would like to have their own homes before having children. Hence, our priority will be to help young couples who wish to settle down to get faster access to public housing.
Second, as more women and grandparents are remaining in the workforce, some young parents are worried that they will not have anybody to care for their children when their maternity or paternity leave ends. Hence, the Government will increase the capacity and enhance the quality of centre-based infant care, so that parents will enjoy peace of mind when they return to work.
Third, new parents would like better workplace and community support, so that they can manage both career and family commitments. Hence, we will work together with businesses and community organisations to better support millennial parents. The Government will launch a pilot where public sector officers and their spouses will be guaranteed six months of parental leave per couple, so that they will have more time to adjust to the new addition in the family. Parents who need to send their child to centre-based care could then do so with greater peace of mind, when the child is older.
The package of enhancements to be implemented this year will benefit up to 25,000 families annually when fully rolled out. The Government will set aside an additional $140 million per year to implement these measures.
However, it is not enough for the Government to act alone. We hope more employers can implement flexible work arrangements to enable employees to manage their career and family commitments. We also hope co-workers can show mutual understanding and support when their colleague needs to take time off work to care for their young child or elderly parent.
There is an African idiom, \"It takes a village to raise a child\". We need to mobilise the whole community and encourage more ground-up initiatives, such as parent support groups and family activities, so that millennials can be assured that parenthood is achievable, enjoyable and celebrated.
(In English): To conclude, families are the foundation of society and our efforts to strengthen these foundations must never cease. Last year, I outlined our vision to make Singapore a Great Place for Families, where marriage and parenthood are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated. We remain strongly committed to this vision.
The package of enhancements to be implemented after this year's COS will benefit an estimated 25,000 families annually, when fully rolled out, and cost the Government an additional $140 million a year. This comes on top of the $2.5 billion each year that is set aside to support marriage and parenthood. The enhancements will help couples get a place of their own sooner, have more peace of mind in the care for their infants and enjoy greater workplace and community support.
We know it is not enough for the Government to act alone. Everyone − family, friends, employers, co-workers and the community − must come on board. Together, we can assure that millennials experience Singapore as a place where they can achieve their dreams, enjoy their families and careers, and celebrate their children with their communities.
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have two cuts, please take them together.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): The rationale for the TDSR policy is well-known. While the Government has a good intention, TDSR is a blunt instrument that has seriously affected certain groups of Singaporeans in the current economic climate. I raised this in a recent Parliamentary Question, but feel compelled to raise it again as some of our residents are in the affected group.
The TDSR restricts borrowing from financial institutions to 60% of a person's monthly income, and applies not only to loans to purchase a property, but also to loans secured on a property. The first affected group will be retirees who have properties to mortgage but no income, who may need some liquidity for one reason or another. A second affected group would be those who have suffered a drop in income or been retrenched in the current downturn, but who can offer property as collateral for a loan.
What these persons ask for is a tweak to the TDSR policy to give them flexibility to re-schedule their debt obligations, at little risk to the lenders. It seems that banks are applying TDSR strictly, with no or few exceptions.
A Malaysian government investment company, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has spawned criminal and regulatory investigations into embezzlement or money laundering in at least 10 countries. Billions of funds associated with 1MDB and wealthy financier Jho Low have reportedly flowed through bank branches in Singapore.
The repercussions on our banking industry have been severe. BSI, one of Switzerland's oldest private banks, had its Singapore branch shut down by MAS in May 2016, because it was the custodian bank for $2.3 billion of investments from 1MDB. The Singapore branch of Falcon Private Bank, another private Swiss bank, was also shut down by MAS in October 2016 after being linked to US$3.8 billion of 1MDB fund flows. Standard Chartered Bank was fined, while both UBS and DBS were penalised by MAS. Bankers have since been convicted and jailed.
All these happened after last year's COS debates when Minister Chan Chun Sing said that MAS has put in place a \"robust preventive regime\". Mdm Chairman, this ongoing saga has severely tarnished Singapore's reputation as a financial centre.
In June 2016, MAS announced that it would combat money laundering by strengthening enforcement. This included the setting up of a dedicated anti-money laundering department, a dedicated supervisory team to monitor risks and carry out on-site supervision of financial institutions, and a new enforcement department to work jointly with CAD.
However, even MAS has acknowledged that \"it is not possible to prevent regulatory breaches and misconduct even with intrusive supervision\". Therefore, we are still very reliant on financial institutions and their employees themselves being vigilant and filing suspicious transaction reports. This regimen breaks down when institutions themselves have fostered a culture of non-compliance, as we have seen with BSI and Falcon Bank, in how they wilfully ignored the risks in the 1MDB-related transactions.
Billions in transactions and millions in bonuses are tremendous incentives to break the law. Even with vigorous enforcement, punishments will only be meted out after the fact and Singapore's reputation in this regard will still be damaged.
I would like to ask the Minister, will the Government take its regulatory measures a step further and actively try to detect bad institutions and, if so, what are the steps by which it intends to do this?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Recently, some of our local banks were named for allegedly financing irresponsible palm oil companies linked to deforestation and the haze. In 2015, the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) released a set of industry guidelines to enhance responsible financing, but it seems that these measures have not borne fruit. International banks, such as HSBC, has started to strengthen their lending criteria, but local banks have not published environment, social and governance policies.
Will MAS encourage financiers to adhere to ABS' guidelines, and what further steps will it take to prevent local financiers' involvement in environmental disruption, which could lead to haze?
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Chairman, I would like to speak about corporate governance of listed companies. Many public listed company executives tell me of the challenges of abiding by a growing checklist of regulations. At the same time, there are rapid changes internationally with regard to compliance.
I note that MAS recently established the Corporate Governance Council to review the Code of Corporate Conduct. Can MAS share more about that?
How can we ensure that this code of conduct, while meeting international standards, will be practical and supportive of businesses, as well as to improve the attractiveness of our exchanges?
Ms Chia Yong Yong:\tBona vacantia\tproperties and estates accrue to the Government, but there is a category of monies that may not be\tbona vacantia.\t Rather, they could just simply be unclaimed by the owners and, these properties, monies, could be held in private or public institutions. Is there legislation for the Government to expropriate such monies?
The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Chairman, let me start by addressing Ms Sylvia Lim's question on TDSR.
We understand the underlying concerns. Retirees, who have fully paid up their properties, may want to take up a mortgage to support their children's education, pay medical fees, support retirement expenses and, maybe, start new companies. But some of them are unable to do so today under the TDSR rules. I do remember Ms Sylvia Lim asking this question last year. It is the same question, but I will give the same answer, which is, that MAS has been receiving similar feedback. We understand the concerns. We are studying the matter.
Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about our anti-money laundering (AML) regime and the efficacy of related agencies and what steps we will take. Maybe some perspectives here.
Singapore is a global business and financial centre. It sees substantial financial flows daily, in many forms. Every such global centre carries risks relating to money laundering and other financial crimes. Increasingly, criminals are developing complex, cross-border schemes to mask illicit flows or ill-gotten gains through financial centres around the world.
Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned 1MDB-related flows. It is a clear example − it is, by far, one of the most complex, sophisticated and largest money laundering cases to date. These flows were channelled through multiple jurisdictions, including the US, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Barbados and through many parties and entities, of which many were shell companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Seychelles.
We have taken many steps and a robust approach to addressing these risks, because trust and rule of law underpin our international reputation. It is a moving game, and our approaches and methods have to keep evolving. Our approach is multi-faceted.
First, we put in place a strong regulatory regime against money laundering, complemented by close supervision, unstinting enforcement where there are offences in Singapore and active international co-operation. Because of the severity and complexity of 1MBD, in fact, we started the Supervisory Examinations two years ago on banks that were suspected of being involved.
The Financial Action Task Force, endearingly known as FATF, has independently assessed our system last year and re-affirmed Singapore's strong regulatory framework, alert supervision of the financial sector.
Second, we have effective use of financial intelligence by the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. And also, we share intelligence with our counterparts all over the world.
But as the 1MDB example shows, even with strong rules, we cannot eliminate financial crime. This is why we need deterrent enforcement, and that is our third step. In the case of the 1MDB-related transactions, we were the first jurisdiction in the world to take enforcement actions.
We shut down two banks mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim – BSI and Falcon Bank – and imposed financial penalties on several other financial institutions. Our courts have fined and, in some cases, imprisoned individuals who were complicit. And this has included senior management in some of these banks. We believe the message has gone out loud and clear − Singapore will not tolerate the criminal abuse of our financial system.
Mr Louis Ng asked if MAS will encourage local financiers to adhere to the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) industry guidelines on responsible financing.
In short, we do. MAS has been working closely with the financial industry on this. Since the launch of ABS' Responsible Financing Guidelines in 2015, ABS member banks are expected to factor into their lending and investment policies sustainability issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, resource efficiency, labour standards and corporate integrity.
The local banks have established internal task forces on environment, social and governance issues to help integrate the ABS Guidelines into their lending and business practices. Banks have implemented environmental risk weightings as part of their loans assessment criteria. Loan decisions relating to companies which are assessed to have high environmental risks will be escalated to the banks' senior management.
ABS has also recently introduced specific guidelines for banks on dealing with haze-related risks, such as no open burning on plantations, and build capacity on fire prevention with local communities.
Mr Henry Kwek has raised a concern on increasing complexity in regulation and the rising cost of compliance, specifically in the area of corporate governance.
As an international financial centre, we must ensure that our system remains sound and effective, and stays abreast of international norms.
On corporate governance, ours is a tiered approach. The Companies Act sets out fundamental requirements for directors to act honestly and use reasonable diligence in discharging their duties. The Code of Corporate Governance sets out corporate governance best practices and applies to listed companies on a comply-or-explain basis. The comply-or-explain regime recognises the need for flexibility and allows listed companies to adopt alternative ways to achieving good governance, as long as deviations from the Corporate Governance Code are accompanied by meaningful explanations.
To ensure that our corporate governance regime remains progressive and relevant, MAS has formed a Corporate Governance Council to review the Corporate Governance Code and practices. The Council members are drawn from various stakeholder groups, including small medium enterprises (SMEs), to provide broad and diverse perspectives on Corporate Governance issues.
The Council will review how the comply-or-explain regime can be made more effective. It will consult widely to ensure that business considerations, investor feedback, as well as international developments, are taken into account. Ultimately, the review seeks to ensure that the Corporate Governance Code continues to support sustained corporate performance, business growth and innovation and maintain investor confidence in our capital markets.
Ms Chia Yong Yong asked if there is any legislation that empowers the Singapore Government to expropriate unclaimed funds held by non-Government entities, such as banks and other professional or commercial entities.
There is, currently, no such legislation. Owners retain their legal right of claim even when their accounts have been inactive.
MAS has been studying the need for a formalised framework to deal with such unclaimed funds. In the meantime, MAS is studying ways to help individuals locate their inactive accounts, with a view to reducing such unclaimed funds.
The Chairman:\tWe have a few minutes for clarifications. Please make your clarifications short. Mr Cedric Foo.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng:\tI thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answers on an integrated Public Service. May I ask him if the Strategy Group still constructs scenario planning − alternative futures of what Singapore may be like so that, as a Public Service, all the senior leaders are tuned into such possible common futures, to seize the opportunities as well as to deal with challenges they pose.
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tYes, Mdm Chairperson, the Public Service still does that. It is now under the PMO Strategy Group and these scenarios cover the entire range of issues which the Public Service and, indeed, Singapore need to deal with − economic, security, social, family and population issues as well.
The Chairman:\tMr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Madam. Allow me to seek some clarifications about our Public Service and also make some clarifications.
As I have mentioned in my speech, the issue is not only about our public servants but I think, more importantly, about the system they work in. As I have mentioned, in our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. So, in the example that I shared, the HDB officer had a heart and wanted to help the resident but the computer did not have a heart and the letter demanding payment was computer-generated. That is the problem we need to tackle.
My speech was also drafted in consultation with the public servants who are on the ground and who are frustrated. Hence, my first suggestion, which is from them, is that we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books.
The Chairman:\tMr Ng, your clarification, please?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang:\tNext sentence, Madam. We need to develop a culture where they are not being penalised for being different. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify what steps we are taking to develop this culture?
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tFirst of all, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for supporting our public officers in making his clarification. Of course, computers have no heart; public servants do. And I would encourage him to continue to encourage his officers who work so closely with him to serve his residents together with him.
The Chairman\t:\tYou have a further clarification, Mr Ng? Yes. A short one, please.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I try to make it short, Madam. I do share the concerns. I am thankful for our public servants and I do work closely with them. As I have mentioned, they are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore.
I just want to add a point, which is, as we cut budgets, I hope we can consider the impact this has on individual public servants. I want to share a comment that was sent to me and I will read it out. Madam, it is just one minute. The quote is, \"You think I do not want to go the extra mile for my country? I got heart but I got time boh? MOF every year cuts budget. We always kena headcount freeze, or worse, headcount cut. Work is ever increasing; manpower decreasing. Sustainable? Keep telling me to exercise compassion and empathy. You think I do not know? Legislate more support for public officers first then we talk.\"
The Chairman:\tMr Ng, put your clarification, please.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang:\tThe clarification is: as we cut budgets, can we consider the impact this has on the individual public servants?
The Chairman:\tDeputy Prime Minister Teo, do you want to respond to that − how the cut will affect individual public servants?
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tWe will continue to provide resources as needed and as available to the Public Service to support our officers in the work that they do. And I think, as a number of Members have pointed out, this is work that is not just for the public officers, and as I have said in my reply, every Member of this House, together with public officers, members of the public and VWOs, we all have a role to play, too.
The Chairman:\tMr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Madam. I just want to thank Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo for her response. I just want to seek a few clarifications regarding my cut on the new Singapore Citizenship Journey.
Firstly, would the Senior Minister of State recognise the grave consequences to our democratic society if all citizens, including new and born-in-Singapore citizens, do not fully understand that their votes are secret? Would the Senior Minister of State further not recognise that with 20,000 new citizens a year, this is equivalent to one SMC, one GRC for parliamentary term, the consequences to our democracy will be grave if a significant minority, even the majority of them, do not understand that their votes are secret?
Given that, and my clarification, the third point is: would the Senior Minister of State agree to insert a short write-up in the new citizen guidebook explaining how votes are kept secret during the electoral process and, if not, why not?
And lastly, if there is a doubt about the facts, would the Government not agree to conducting a study to ascertain if this is, indeed, something that not all new citizens fully understand?
Mrs Josephine Teo:\tMdm Chairman, may I seek a clarification from the Member? Is it the Member's view or contention that citizens born in this country know that the vote is secret, but for some strange reason, our new citizens do not know that their vote is secret? Is that your contention, Sir?
Mr Leon Perera:\tThe Senior Minister of State may not be aware that I have, in fact, raised this as a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about born-in-Singapore citizens. I raised it as a PQ to Minister Ng Chee Meng, I believe, and it was answered last year that this education gap could also be an issue for born-in-Singapore citizens. I do not only have that concern for new citizens. It is also a concern for born-in-Singapore citizens. I asked if the school curriculum could educate students on that, and that was a PQ that is in the Hansard. I asked that last year. But my cut here is in the context of new citizens only. So, that is what I am referring to in this particular instance. But it is also an issue for born-in-Singapore citizens.
Mrs Josephine Teo:\tSo, may I confirm then that this issue has nothing to do with new citizens per se?
Mr Leon Perera:\t My cut is specifically asking about new citizens and the new citizen guidebook, and if there can be some education.
Mrs Josephine Teo:\tBut Mdm Chairman, the Member just said he also asked about the secrecy of votes and the knowledge of such amongst all citizens, not just new citizens. So, it has nothing to do with new citizens per se. Is that the correct understanding?
Mr Leon Perera:\tThat is not the case. I was referring to my PQ last year in response to your clarification to my clarification. You asked if I only have this concern about new citizens. I do not. I do have this concern for born-in-Singapore citizens as well. But my cut is about new citizens.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Chairman, I must say that this question comes as a surprise to me. As I have mentioned in my reply, the vast majority of all adult new citizens have lived in Singapore for at least five years before naturalisation, which means that they would have witnessed at least an electoral cycle, usually.
When we are in an election, I do not think in all of the elections that I have taken part in as a voter has the issue of electoral fraud been prominent. The secrecy of the vote, I think, is something that I have learnt as a little girl, watching television, from young, come election time, there is a television advertisement that tells you, \"Your Vote is Secret\". I have learnt that my entire life and I do not know of many other fellow citizens who would doubt that. I urge the Member not to be overly worried about this. If there is anyone that he comes across that has any further doubt on this, they can certainly visit our Elections Department's website and be reassured.
Mr Leon Perera:\tMadam, may I just make one last clarification?
The Chairman:\tMake it short, please.
Mr Leon Perera:\t I appreciate what the Senior Minister of State has said. I had, as I mentioned in my cut, actually met a number of new citizens who are not clear about this. My clarification would be: what would be the problem or impediment to just including a write-up to educate new citizens about that in the guidebook? What would be the issue in doing that?
The Chairman:\tDeputy Prime Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tMdm Chairman, if I recall, the PAP has always been saying and the Government has always been saying that your vote is secret. The ones who had been saying that the vote was not secret in the past was exactly the Workers' Party until you discovered it was not really such a good idea to say that your vote is not secret. And suddenly, you changed your mind and are now going out to tell people that your vote is secret, for which we are grateful. The Government has been saying that all along and we are glad that you agree.
The Chairman:\tMs Sylvia Lim
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tThank you, Madam. I have a clarification for Minister Ong Ye Kung on my cut on money laundering. He mentioned in his response that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) had done an evaluation last year and generally gave a good report on our measures. But is it also not true that in that report, they actually said that while we were probably good at tackling smaller scale financial crime, we were not strong on cross-border, the bigger cases. There was an observation that we should try to target the more complex cases and that is expected of us as a sophisticated financial centre. So, my question is whether the Minister agrees that, actually, the Government or we are still on a learning curve on how to respond adequately to these, as he says, complex cross-border transactions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: If I remember correctly, when FATF made those observations, that was before we disclosed our findings on 1MDB money laundering and closed down BSI and Falcon Bank. The timing is a bit different. Having said that, I take Ms Sylvia Lim's point, this is always a learning process. In Chinese:道 高 一 尺，魔 高 一 丈. When the moral is one feet, the evil is 10 feet. And it is a moving game. We will constantly have to learn, work with our foreign counterparts, exchange intelligence, work together and tackle this.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied):\tMadam, may I seek a clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister on what he said about the Workers' Party?
The Chairman:\tYes, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang:\tWould the Deputy Prime Minister clarify when the Workers' Party said the vote is not secret? I do not remember I said that.
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tI recall the Workers' Party has made an issue about registration numbers on voters' slips and so forth. Mr Low may choose not to remember, but those were issues which were raised before, I think even in this House.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang):\tThank you, Mdm Chairman. I am very happy to hear from Mr Ong Ye Kung that MAS is looking at unclaimed funds in bank accounts. Can I also ask him if they are also looking at unclaimed insurance policies? Because a lot of people buy insurance policies and when they die, the family members do not know what policies they have bought or from where.
Mr Ong Ye Kung:\tI thank the Member for raising this new issue. MAS, I am sure, will take a look at it.
The Chairman:\tMr Cedric Foo, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mdm Speaker, let me thank the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Vivian, Minister Ong and Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo for their replies to our questions on PMO. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $417,943,300 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $70,367,200 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman:\tOrder. I propose to take a break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.20 pm until 5.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.40 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply − Head N (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Mr Vikram Nair, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Following the end of the Second World War, the colonial era came to an end and a new world order was set up by the allies focused on global interdependence and cooperation amongst countries. International organisations, such as the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were set up in Bretton Woods to facilitate peace and security and to assist the world in transition.
As countries gained independence after the War, all countries, big and small, had a say in these organisations. The Cold War never really erupted into a world war, I believe, in large part, because all major players respected international norms and laws.
Singapore thrived in this world. As a small country, we spoke up strongly against any violation of international norms, particularly in relation to the use of force, and also did our part to assist other countries grow and develop. We made many friends on the international stage by looking for win-win outcomes with our counterparts, be it in trade or investments, and shared our own ideas freely with anyone interested.
Two thousand and sixteen, though, saw several worrying trends, such as rising anti-globalisation, protectionist and nationalist sentiments, across the globe. These feelings have always been there, but what has been remarkable in 2016 is how strongly these have emerged in the political scene, particularly even countries, such as the US and UK, the two largest powers in the English-speaking world.
In the US, President Trump has campaigned on the back of re-negotiating or unwinding free trade agreements, including NAFTA and the TPP. He has since followed through to formally withdraw the US from the TPP.
In Europe, the people of the UK voted to end Britain's membership of the EU, a decision which the politicians are still working hard to implement, moving through unchartered constitutional waters. In France, Europe's largest country, Marine Le Pen is campaigning on a platform that is anti-immigration and anti-EU. The polls predict that she will be the frontrunner in the first round but lose the second round. However, given that the polls were wrong on both Brexit and Trump's victory, the world may need to prepare for a scenario where she prevails in France on the back of anti-globalist sentiments. If so, that may well mean the start of the end of the EU as we know it.
Meanwhile, security challenges posed by organised terrorist groups and other lone wolf attacks continue to threaten society, given the transnational nature of terrorism and violent extremism. As the battles in Iraq and Syria rage with the so-called Islamic State, fighters travelling to and from the region continue to pose a threat in countries far and wide, from Europe to Southeast Asia.
Closer to home, significant geopolitical shifts are taking place with countries in the region anxiously watching for early signs from the Trump administration as to whether and how the US will stay actively involved and engaged and how it intends to interact with China.
These developments could prompt countries to adjust their positions accordingly. Meanwhile, longstanding issues like territorial disputes and historical issues continue to be sources of tension in the region. At a time when it is even more imperative for regional organisations like ASEAN to stay united in order to navigate external pressures and regional dynamics, it appears that there remain difficult issues on which ASEAN would struggle to take a united position, such as, for example, matters relating to the South China Sea.
In this regard, what does MFA see as the major challenges facing Singapore in this environment? How should we position ourselves in these uncertain times?
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
Mr Vikram Nair: The Sino-US relationship is a key major power relationship for Singapore and the region. Singapore has historically been a good friend to both countries. Singapore has always been a good and reliable friend to the US in the region from the time of its Independence. When China was opening up to the world in the 1990s, Singapore was one of the early ones to set up formal diplomatic ties and help build bridges to ASEAN and its other friends.
However, leadership changes in both countries − namely, the election of US President Donald Trump and the upcoming 19th Party Congress of the Communist Party − have created some uncertainty about the future trajectory of this relationship.
At this stage, President Trump's approach towards China and how China would respond remains unclear. On the one hand, it was reassuring that President Trump reportedly had a good telephone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping on 9 February 2017. Other newly appointed leaders have also met or spoken to their Chinese counterparts.
On the other hand, President Trump's earlier threats included a threat to slap a 45% across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports into the US, which could mean that we will potentially see a difficult trade relationship between the US and China. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on 21 February 2017 that a US-China trade war would benefit nobody.
The US has also made other threats, such as the threat to revise the One-China policy that had guided diplomatic relations since the Nixon era.
The US approach to Asia also remains uncertain. On the one hand, President Trump campaigned on the back of undoing US free trade agreements. On the other hand, his Secretary Rex Tillerson has reaffirmed that the US will continue to be a major player in the region and even stated they would take steps to prevent China accessing illegally built structures in the South China Sea − a point which caused consternation in China but which seemed to suggest that the US still views its role in Asia as important.
As a country which trades and invests extensively with both countries, Singapore may face adverse consequences if the relationship between the US and China sours. What is MFA's take on the direction of Sino-US relations in the medium term and what is MFA's strategy to manage Singapore's relations with China and the US?
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Chairman, it was only half a year ago that the Prime Minister conducted a marathon of diplomatic visits to our closest partners in the region. In three months, he travelled to Laos to meet with ASEAN leaders, and to the US, China, Japan, India and Australia to affirm longstanding ties.
Things were looking up for our relations with these key countries. Our principled foreign policy position has emphasised the international rule of law, commitment to an open economy and freedom of navigation, mutual respect for each other's independence, and armed neutrality. This seems to have earned us a good deal of legroom as a small, sovereign city state among large powers. Some even commented that we are punching above our weight in the international arena to influence outcomes for the common good.
Much of our foreign policy achievements are clearly due to our hardworking diplomatic corps, members of whom have been building on the foundation established by our premier statesman, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. But it is also becoming apparent that the global order is changing and changing rapidly. Even as the Prime Minister continued his diplomatic marathon, when he was visiting Japan in September, a Chinese state-owned newspaper stoked public anger by accusing Singapore of taking sides against China.
Chairman, I am glad that the issue with the seizure of the Terrex vehicle by Hong Kong Customs was handled with great care by China and Singapore and has come to pass. Nevertheless, the public expressions and discussions resulting from the event do point to some critical challenges to Singapore in this changing global order. The critical challenges pertain to a rising China with the economic and military clout to impose its will on Asia. China may not do so in the near future, but with the means and its strong position on the South China Sea claims, the potential is there.
Whether we like it or not, China is an important strategic partner. However, even as Singapore invests in new opportunities of bilateral cooperation, especially under China's \"Belt and Road\" initiative, we need to be mindful of not becoming too dependent on the Chinese economy.
We have encouraged our businessmen, entrepreneurs and professionals to connect with their Chinese counterparts using deep historical and cultural links. We saw the complications when Singaporeans doing business and working in China came under public pressure during the events last year. Some Singaporeans were even of the opinion that we should appease China. Singapore not only risks becoming economically vulnerable to any strategic foreign policy shift by China, the multiracial and multicultural character of our society will also come under pressure.
To compound this challenge, the new US administration pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a month ago. The US looks set to turn inwards to deal with domestic political conflicts. If the US disengages from Southeast Asia, this will leave a gap, if not a vacuum.
If ASEAN continues to be divided on the collective response to the South China Sea issue, then the gap left by the US will mean ASEAN will have to face a strong China by ourselves and divided. This is a grim prospect.
Chairman, one of the tenets of our foreign policy is hard-nosed pragmatism to survive as a small city state. I would like to ask the Foreign Minister whether our foreign policy principles need to be updated in view of the changing world order and, if not, how the existing principles would guide us in the volatile and uncertain waters.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Chairman, my next cut is on the outlook for Singapore-US relations. Singapore has a long history of strong and close bilateral relationship with the US. We cooperate in many areas for mutual benefit.
Economic ties have been one of the cornerstones of our relationship with the US. The Singapore-US FTA was implemented since 2004, one of the first FTAs signed by the US. The US is also Singapore's largest foreign investor, with investments of about $244 billion in 2015, and that accounted for 20% of Singapore's foreign direct inward investments.
Many US companies have set up their regional headquarters here in Singapore, with a significant number of Americans living, working and studying here. Similarly, many Singaporeans are drawn to study and work in the US.
The US has also been a firm supporter of maintaining regional peace and stability in Asia for many years, acting as a benign and constructive power. In December 2015, Singapore and the US signed the enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA). This is an update to the 2005 Singapore-US DCA and also part of the bilateral Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) between both sides. The SFA underpins the close defence and security partnership that has contributed to maintaining regional peace and stability here in this region.
Chairman, all the above was prior to the US Presidential Elections in November last year. Now, with the new Trump administration and its \"America First\" policy, I would like to ask the Minister how he sees Singapore-US relations evolving.
President Trump has also signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. He has also said that he wants to narrow the US trade deficits with countries, such as China, Germany, Japan, and may, indeed, adopt a protectionist posture with hefty import tariffs. Fortunately for Singapore, the US actually has a trade surplus with us.
The question to the Minister is on the implications on Singapore which relies heavily on open and free trade. Also, does the Minister see new opportunities for Singapore to be working even closer with the new US administration for mutual benefit?
Chairman, I move on to the next cut on Singapore-China relations and also Singapore's role as the coordinator for ASEAN-China Dialogue.
Relations between Singapore and China have been good for many years. More than 20 years ago, back in 1994, the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park joint venture was formed. This represented the first G-to-G economic cooperation project of its kind and on a scale not commonly seen. This was followed by the Tianjin Eco-city Project in 2007 and, now, the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative. Singapore is one of China's largest foreign investors. In fact, I think it is the largest foreign investor in China. To deepen economic cooperation further, a slew of projects was recently signed at the China-Singapore Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation meeting co-chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Cee Hean and Chinese Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli.
Beyond economic cooperation, Singapore-China relations are also complemented by collaboration between the Civil Service College here and China's Tsinghua University for the training and development of public policy leaders.
People-to-people ties and cultural roots are also deep and strong. China tourists to Singapore increased to 2.86 million last year. Many Singaporeans also visit China for business and leisure.
Notwithstanding the strong and broad political, economic and social ties between the two countries, there would be occasional differences. How would Singapore manage these differences? Ultimately, a prosperous and successful China which remains engaged in this region will augur well for the balance of power and, therefore, improve the stability for the region.
Singapore is also currently designated as the Coordinator for ASEAN-China dialogue. How can we play a constructive and useful role in bringing about better understanding and rapport between the two parties? Would the Minister share with this House MFA's intended approach in this regard?
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): With the conclusion of the 13th Singapore-China Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation, it seems that the rough patch in Singapore-China relations in the second half of 2016 is behind us as officials on both sides signalled their intent to further collaborate by signing a series of cooperation initiatives.
Mr Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, in a meeting with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, said, \"I hope both sides can work doubly hard through the actual actions of our cooperation to fully embody the characterisation of the bilateral relationship that we share, which is an all-round cooperative partnership, progressing with the times\". What is our interpretation of what he had said and can MFA update us as to how Singapore can navigate the opportunities and challenges in this bilateral relationship?
Both countries have strong cultural, people-to-people, trade, finance and investment links. I would like to suggest that there be more formal and informal touchpoints established between the governments, businesses and the people sectors of both countries, so that communication and understanding can be enhanced to the benefit of both countries.
Mr Amrin Amin (Sembawang): Singapore's relations with our immediate neighbours, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia, remain of great importance to us. As close neighbours, developments in these countries invariably have an impact on us and it is crucial that we remain invested in building good relationships with them.
Our bilateral relations with Malaysia have seen a significant upswing in recent years. Many positive initiatives, such as the KL-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR), the JB-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS), and joint property developments, such as Marina One and the DUO, were pursued in a spirit of good neighbourliness. These projects will bring our people closer together. To many Singaporeans, it would appear that bilateral relations have never been better.
At the same time, we were surprised by Malaysia's decision to apply for a revision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s 2008 judgment on the case concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. We believed that the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca had been closed by the ICJ's decision years ago.
Given these developments, I seek an assessment from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on our current relations with Malaysia and whether Malaysia's decision to apply for a revision of the ICJ judgment has affected the overall tenor of the relationship.
Bilateral relations with Indonesia appear to be on a positive trajectory. I note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently hosted his Indonesian counterpart's visit to Singapore, and that Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi held a Leaders' Retreat and opened an industrial park in Indonesia last year. What were some of the recent highlights and what is the Minister's assessment of Singapore's relationship with Indonesia?
We have always described Singapore's relationship with Brunei as a \"special relationship\". It is a longstanding and close relationship, the foundations of which were firmly laid by Brunei's late Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien and Singapore's founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Would the Minister be able to give us an update on the status of our bilateral relations and the trajectory of the relationship over the next few years?
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Chairman, the ICJ's judgment in May 2008 had resolved a longstanding territorial dispute between Singapore and Malaysia in a peaceful and amicable manner. Both sides had undertaken to respect and abide by the ICJ's judgment. Then Malaysian Foreign Minister Rais Yatim had also described the outcome as a \"win-win situation\".
Given the excellent state of our bilateral relations, Singaporeans were naturally concerned by Malaysia's application on 2 February this year to revise the ICJ's decision which awarded sovereignty over Pedra Branca to Singapore.
Can the Minister elaborate on Singapore's response to Malaysia's application and whether this case will affect bilateral relations with Malaysia? Will ongoing projects, such as the High Speed Rail, be affected?
The previous application to ICJ took about four years from submission to judgment. How long does MFA expect this revision to take and what would the key milestones be?
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, Singapore and Indonesia have enjoyed good relations for many years and share strong trade and cultural links, despite having some inevitable differences in various areas over the years. Singapore has been among the top three foreign investors in Indonesia and tourism between the two countries remains strong.
In November last year, as earlier noted, four wide-ranging MOUs were signed on the sidelines of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's Leaders' Retreat with President Joko Widodo. I note that Singapore and Indonesia will be commemorating their 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations this year. I would like to seek the Minister's views on the state of bilateral relations. Furthermore, I would like to ask if there are plans for a Golden Jubilee celebration with Indonesia.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): I would like to seek clarifications from the Ministry on, first, what are the key achievements of ASEAN over the last 50 years? Second, how can ASEAN remain relevant in the future, in view of the changing geopolitical landscape?
Sir, ASEAN was formed on 8 August 1967. Its main role is to promote regional peace and stability, accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region, and also maintain close cooperation with international organisations with similar purposes.
The 10 ASEAN countries cover a land area of about 4.4 million sq km and have approximately 625 million people. Although ASEAN has been in existence for 50 years, not many people in the ASEAN countries understand the key roles and operations of ASEAN and how ASEAN has benefited them. In fact, some have criticised ASEAN to be a talk-shop among political leaders without achieving any desirable outcomes that benefit its businesses and people. Some have said that ASEAN is \"big on words but small on action\", and ASEAN policies have proven to be mostly rhetoric, rather than actual implementation.
Sir, as ASEAN will be celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, it is a good opportunity to re-examine the key roles of ASEAN and re-position it to be more effective in responding to the changing geopolitical landscape. In my opinion, ASEAN should focus on three areas.
One, strengthen the unity among ASEAN countries so as to achieve peace and stability in the region. Political leaders and government officials must put in more efforts to further improve diplomatic relations among countries and friendship among government officials.
Two, promote more partnerships among businesses in ASEAN countries to create better jobs for our people. More trade missions should be organised to facilitate business partnerships, investments and promotion of goods and services among ASEAN countries.
Three, encourage more people-to-people exchanges and interactions to foster stronger friendships among our people. We should encourage twin cities arrangements so that more opportunities can be created for residents of different ASEAN countries or cities to know each other better. This will further strengthen the unity of ASEAN.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, ASEAN is our immediate neighbourhood. Relationships have been warm and constructive in the last few years, especially with neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia. While we share some core common values and positions, the diverse political backgrounds and ever-changing circumstances within each country will inevitably lead to situations where we need to manage some of the differences and potential tension points that will surface from time to time.
Maintaining strong and resilient political, economic and people-to-people ties within our region is, hence, very important in a region as diverse as Southeast Asia. What is Singapore doing to maintain strong links with our fellow ASEAN countries? How can we deepen Singaporeans' understanding of and familiarity with political developments in ASEAN, its culture and sensitivities and its economic opportunities?
In the CFE Report, it had mentioned that AEC will make ASEAN a more compelling market and a competitive production base. There are, indeed, good potential opportunities and sound commercial reasons for our companies to expand and internationalise into the region.
As the ASEAN Chair in 2018, how could Singapore help to advance economic integration within ASEAN and with its key partners?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, since the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling in favour of the Philippines against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea last year, media reports on the summits between leaders of ASEAN and China, coming just before and after the ruling, alleged that China's interference in ASEAN's affairs succeeded in dividing the organisation.
It would appear that Laos and Cambodia, which have strong overland economic ties with China, were weighing their national interests against the collective interests of ASEAN. Has this split healed since the events last year? What is the status of ASEAN integration, or has the South China Sea issue effectively blocked any progress for integration? Is the Philippines really embracing China? If so, what are the implications for ASEAN unity, given the Philippines is the ASEAN Chair this year?
Sir, it has been said by an expert in the foreign policy field that a divided ASEAN is not in the interest of China. This is not obvious to me as a lay person, as it seems that it is in China's interest to have a divided ASEAN. Historically, great powers will seek to divide and rule and advance their own interests in Southeast Asia. I am not sure China will be an exception, given its own imperial history. China continues to expand its economic influence in mainland Southeast Asia and even with Malaysia, and will seek leverage with small states, such as Brunei and Singapore.
We, of course, have our principled foreign policy and will never compromise our independence. However, are we in a position to help unite ASEAN and to block out any divisive forces? If we are not in that position, then are we able to facilitate processes or support another leading country, say, Indonesia, to help unite ASEAN?
Sir, ASEAN has long served as an anchor for Singapore in the region. If ASEAN is beginning to lose its viability, then what alternatives does Singapore have to try to achieve a semblance of stability in its surrounding waters?
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Chairman, Japan and the Republic of Korea are two important regional partners for Singapore. We commemorated the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Singapore and Japan last year, and the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Singapore and the Republic of Korea in 2015. Both these relationships are fuelled by strong economic cooperation and people-to-people ties. For instance, the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement has provided a firm foundation for economic cooperation between our two countries.
As we look towards the next significant milestone in these relationships, how can Singapore further strengthen our cooperation with key partners, such as Japan and the Republic of Korea, and explore new areas for cooperation?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Sir, Singapore and India's relations have strong historical and cultural linkages and has come a long way. Recently, there have been many interactions at the various levels − government-to-government, business-to-business and people-to-people.
I would like to seek an update on our bilateral relations with India. In particular, how have we expanded cooperation with India following the Strategic Partnership that was signed during Prime Minister Modi's visit to Singapore in November 2015?
The Chairman: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, you have two cuts.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, Singapore and Australia share an extremely strong bilateral relationship. Our people-to-people ties are deep and well-connected. Australia is a popular destination for many Singaporeans on holiday. Its universities are internationally renowned and highly regarded. They are a top choice of many of our Singapore youths who seek to pursue a tertiary education overseas.
Singapore and Australia also share many bilateral and international platforms which allow for close government-to-government communication and cooperation. The 9th Singapore-Australia Joint Ministerial Committee held on 18 March 2016 in Sydney, led by Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan and Ministers Lim Hng Kiang and Ng Eng Hen, is a good example of this.
Separately, Australia is also a key strategic partner of Singapore in the region. Australia participates actively in regional forums, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the East Asia Summit (EAS).
In 2015, Singapore and Australia celebrated 50 years of diplomatic relations. We can all recollect Prime Minister Lee enjoying an outdoor BBQ session with then-Prime Minister Tony Abbot in celebrating the landmark occasion.
This culminated in May 2016 when we concluded a landmark agreement to deepen economic integration, expand defence cooperation, jointly promote innovation and entrepreneurship and further strengthen our people-to-people ties by facilitating tourism, cultural exchanges and educational opportunities. This agreement builds on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) adopted in June 2015 by the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Australia.
Sir, in the premises, I invite the Minister to share with us on: (a) any update on the implementation of the CSP; and (b) the practical benefits that Singaporeans can expect to benefit from its implementation.
As a small state, Singapore has a vital interest in advocating for and maintaining a rules-based international order. As an open economy with our key focus on free trade, Singapore's external environment plays an important role in ensuring our continued development and success. International rules bring greater predictability and, more crucially, form the basis for international cooperation.
There is a shift in the international geopolitical landscape. The rise in the economic might of China has made some question the sustainability of the US as the world's pre-eminent superpower. There is, however, no consensus on how this will affect the international order.
Vital issues, such as terrorism, cyber threats, climate change and pandemics, present new perspectives on global challenges that have shifted the traditional paradigm of solutions. These are issues that are transboundary in nature and require the collective efforts of the entire international community as a whole in search of effective solutions.
Closer to home, in the Asia Pacific region, countries are developing fast and growing rapidly. In time to come, the interests of these countries will come to the fore as their ability to defend their interests grows. This will significantly change the geopolitical dynamics in the region.
International Organisations, such as the UN, WTO, IMF, ICAO, IMO, G20 and APEC, are, therefore, critical multilateral platforms that will allow small states, such as Singapore, to engage the international community and contribute to possible solutions. These forums are vital platforms that can assist in the creation of global norms or rules in areas, such as international trade, finance, health and the environment.
It is, therefore, imperative that Singapore continues to engage deeply and participate actively in such multilateral organisations. If we fail to do so, our views will not be taken into account and this will be detrimental to our long-term strategic interests.
In the premises, I invite the Minister to share with us on: (a) Singapore's position as a small state in the international order and multilateral system; and (b) how Singapore can help to strengthen the multilateral system.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, we face an increasingly complex and uncertain world today. In recent months, unexpected electoral outcomes around the world have brought about unforeseen challenges. Strategic uncertainties driven by the adjustment of major power relations, such as between the US and China, and Britain's exit from the EU, will impact a small country like Singapore. A particular concern is that, from time to time, major powers will exert pressure on Singapore to take sides for a variety of reasons − nationalistic or protectionist motives, or even ethnic or religious concerns.
As a country that treasures not only our sovereignty but also our multiracial and multi-religious way of life, instances of pressure from major powers may raise anxiety among fellow Singaporeans. In such a situation, it is important for Singaporeans to understand why we need to remain steadfast by not bending to take sides and, more critically, why Singapore adheres to a principled position of upholding international rule of law, even though this may cause certain levels of unhappiness from some of our major partners.
As such, it is important for the Government to explain the considerations behind our foreign policy and to assure us that this is in Singapore's and Singaporeans' best interest. How then can MFA better engage our public on Singapore's foreign policy and to explain the challenges Singapore faces from our external environment?
Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, I wish to seek clarifications from the Ministry on the following.
First, in this rapidly changing and uncertain world, how does MFA review its work processes and allocate its resources to respond effectively in protecting the interests of Singaporeans?
Second, what sort of training programmes must MFA staff undergo in order to be operationally-ready?
In today's ever-changing geopolitical situations and the high-speed flow of information, there is a need to develop new capabilities among our MFA staff to better respond to these challenges.
Smartphone applications and the Internet have allowed information and news, including fake news, to travel fast and reach out to many people which, in turn, affect political developments rapidly. Thus, our MFA staff − especially those involved in overseas missions − must be tech-savvy to respond effectively in a dynamic political environment.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, to say that the last financial year has been a public education in diplomacy for many younger Singaporeans would be an understatement.
The release of the Permanent Court of Arbitration's judgment in favour of the Philippines over territorial differences in the South China Sea was followed up almost overnight by an unexpected upswing in relations between China and the Philippines even as Singapore and many like-minded countries affirmed the judgment and rule of law.
The Terrex episode, which saw nine military vehicles temporarily confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities, hit even closer to home. While the issue appears to have been resolved and relations with China back on the usual even keel, some keen observers continue to watch the signature of Singapore's military activities in Taiwan, even as others viewed the episode as a shrewd diplomatic ploy by China to make a point about the One China Policy and to signal dissatisfaction with Singapore's position on the South China Sea.
I would imagine these incidents, amongst many others, to have taken up much time and energy of the relevant departments in MFA and the Government more generally.
It is also worthwhile to note that Singapore is into its second year as country coordinator of ASEAN-China relations, a challenging assignment made even more so by a new US administration determined, on the surface at least, to take a hard-headed and transactional approach in its relationship with China and with its domestic constituency more paramount in the conduct of foreign affairs than ever before.
More recently, the last few weeks have also seen the Malaysian government re-open the Pedra Branca case by way of an appeals mechanism.
Closer to home, it was significant that strategy number one of the seven strategies arising out of the Committee on the Future Economy was to deepen and diversify Singapore's international connections and to press ahead with trade and investment cooperation.
In view of this renewed strategy cast against a broader evolutionary geopolitical environment, does the Ministry plan to review its staffing requirements, both locally and in overseas Embassies and High Commissions, with a view to raising manpower?
Secondly, in view of ASEAN as a central economic region for Singapore, and in step with the CFE Report's relevance to the ASEAN Economic Community, does the Ministry plan to open more consulates in ASEAN cities to further economic linkages and further develop our international trade relationships?
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Chairman, recent global developments point towards increasingly inward-looking and protectionist sentiments in countries, such as the UK and the US. The resulting uncertainty that pervades the region, coupled with the global economic slowdown, could have serious implications for Singapore. Recent leadership changes and upcoming elections in some of our neighbours would also have an impact on the current state and dynamics within our region.
Trade is Singapore's lifeblood. Our trade figures are about two to three times our GDP. Our immediate economic hinterland would be our Southeast Asian neighbours. ASEAN comprises 620 million people with an estimated combined GDP of US$2.3 trillion. The region offers much potential and many opportunities for economic collaboration.
In this context, I would like an update on the state of our economic relations with Southeast Asian countries and how has Singapore been strengthening our economic ties with our neighbours? How could and should our people and businesses contribute towards the relationship?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Chairman, Sir, UK's Brexit, with the complex and prolonged negotiations involved, continues to occupy the minds of many Singaporeans. Aside from dampening economic growth, Brexit is a sign of inclination towards isolationism in the West. As a small nation that depends heavily on foreign trade and diplomacy, increasing isolationism is a cause for concern.
Thanks to Government efforts, our ties with the EU have been cordial. The EU actively engages with ASEAN in trade. Among ASEAN nations, we are the EU's largest trading partner and also the 17th largest trading partner in the world. Our nation has also been a major destination for European investments. With the UK being one of the strongest economies and markets in Europe, Brexit would undoubtedly challenge our trade dynamics with the EU.
I would like to ask the Minister for the outlook on Singapore's relations with the EU and the UK. What will this mean for the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), which has concluded negotiations, but has yet to be officially implemented? Going forward, what is being done to continue to strengthen relations with Europe? Moreover, on the economic and diplomatic front, how will we strengthen ties with an independent UK?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, Singapore has always been ready to respond to humanitarian crises and natural disasters in the region. For refugees, Singapore recently contributed US$200,000 to the ASEAN Trust Fund. MINDEF also began humanitarian assistance disaster relief missions as far back as 1970. The Government also frequently contributes cash donations via humanitarian organisations, such as the Red Cross and Mercy Relief.
As such, will the Ministry consider establishing a new department of foreign (humanitarian) aid, similar to Japan's International Coordination Agency (JICA) or the UK's Department for International Development (DfID), for example, to coordinate humanitarian aid and strengthen our response to regional humanitarian crises? We have the capability and resources to do more to help our neighbours and I would urge us to do so on the grounds of compassion to strengthen bilateral ties and to strengthen stability and prosperity in our region.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Chairman, the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) is a series conducted by the Government to facilitate the sharing and empowerment with developing countries. We share technical and systems skills and also human resources development which is seen as a vital and strategic move for economic and social progress. The training covers various areas of interest, which include trade promotion, healthcare, humanitarian assistance, public administration and law, amongst others.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of our SCP. How efficient and effective have our efforts been in assisting these countries over the years? How does the Ministry monitor this and what are the KPIs set? Whilst customisation may happen upon request from receiving countries, how frequently do we review our programmes and ensure relevance and applicability?
One more observation is that the SCP programmes may not just be executed by Singapore alone but in partnerships, for example, the Singapore-Canada Third Country Training Programme. In such cases, how big is our voice, our partnership and also contribution, and how are these decided upon in the sharing and cooperation?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Sir, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by the United Nations in 2015 to replace the Millennium Development Goals. It charts out 17 Sustainable Development Goals that provide a framework for countries to address global issues, such as poverty, gender equality, climate change and sustainable development, among others. While the Goals are aspirational in nature and not legally binding, achieving these goals is no small feat and will require all countries to work together, including Singapore.
As a small country with limited land and resources, we understand first-hand both the imperative and the challenges of sustainable development. What we are able to achieve on our own is limited in the grand scheme of things, as the outcome of global climate change will hinge on decisions taken by all countries, especially the major economies.
Nonetheless, as an active and responsible member of the international community, it is important that we play a constructive role to help forge a global consensus and to contribute in small but meaningful ways.
In this regard, how is Singapore cooperating with other countries and international agencies to tackle global issues, such as sustainable development and climate change?
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): We are entering a more challenging economic environment. Growth in the developed markets has become more subdued. There are growing protectionist sentiments in some countries. As a small and open economy with foreign trade more than three times our GDP, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to economic shifts and, more worryingly, protectionist measures.
As articulated in the recently released Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) Report, one of the strategies to take Singapore forward in this challenging global climate is to \"deepen and diversify our international connections\". Indeed, beyond traditional markets like Southeast Asia and China, emerging markets, such as South Asia, Africa, Latin America and Central Asia, offer growth potential and pockets of opportunities for our businesses abroad. Singapore should take the opportunity to strengthen our partnership with these countries.
In view of this, I would like to ask what MFA is doing to expand our linkages with the emerging markets, including political and people-to-people linkages.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Marine Parade): The Latin American countries remain a very important emerging market which holds significant economic potential for Singapore. This is borne out by the fact that despite a slowdown in the global economy, Singapore's trade with the Latin American and Caribbean countries reached $21.1 billion in 2015.
This region is also home to several major and promising economies, such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, all of whom are in the G20, along with the Pacific Alliance, a regional trade bloc comprising Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico.
The region's importance to Singapore was recently underscored by President Tony Tan's state visit to Mexico in June 2016 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Singapore and Mexico. This was also the first visit by President Tan to the Latin American region.
What further steps, therefore, is the Ministry taking to broaden and deepen our commitment to these bilateral ties, to expand political, economic, educational, cultural and also people-to-people links?
Finally, beyond these issues of economic ties and engagements, what other non-economic areas, such as development of arts and culture, science and technology, could be considered by the Ministry?
Mr Amrin Amin: The political and security situation in the Middle Eastern countries continues to be uncertain and in a state of flux. The wars in Syria and Yemen are still ongoing.
The Israeli-Palestinian issue has not made any progress. As major oil producers, countries in the Middle East have been impacted by the low oil prices.
Can the Minister provide an update on Singapore's engagement with the Middle East? Besides economic engagement, what the other areas are we working on with the Middle Eastern countries?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Chairman, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a deeply complex issue that has confronted the Middle East for decades.
The international community has tried to assist in resolving the question but with limited success. It is an emotive and complex issue, not only in the Middle East, but also here in Singapore and the Southeast Asia region.
Despite the difficulties, it is important to find a solution, one that can help achieve a just and durable peace, with Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in security.
It is clear that there is no straight-forward solution to this longstanding conflict. Building trust and confidence between parties is the key building block towards a solution. However, this is easier said than done. Singapore, on our part, has friendly ties with both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Singapore in February 2017. During the visit, Prime Minister Lee reiterated Singapore's longstanding and consistent position that a two-state solution is the only way to bring peace and security to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and to the Middle East.
Earlier in April 2016, Prime Minister Lee had visited Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan.
During his visit to the Palestinian Territories, Prime Minister Lee had announced a doubling of our enhanced technical assistance package to $10 million to support the Palestinians in building up their capacity and skills.
Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Defence Dr Maliki Osman followed this up with a working visit to the Palestinian Territories in November 2016, during which he informed the Palestinian leadership about the Government's appointment of Mr Hawazi Daipi as Singapore's Representative to the Palestinian National Authority to coordinate Singapore's enhanced technical assistance package for the Palestinians. Mr Hawazi has since made his first visit, as Singapore's Representative, to the West Bank in January 2017.
Internationally, a Conference for Peace in the Middle East was also held in Paris, France, in January 2017 where there were also calls for Israel and Palestine to embrace the two-state solution.
I invite the Minister to share with us on: the impact of international conferences, such as the Conference for Peace in the Middles held in Paris earlier this year; Singapore's position on the issue and the reasons behind it; and any updates and outcomes of Senior Minister of State Dr Maliki Osman and Mr Hawazi Daipi's working visits to the Palestinian Territories.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Singapore is one of the smallest nations of the world. Many, however, have described us as \"punching well above our weight\" in terms of economic, political, foreign policies and security relevance. Making friends and influencing others require us to be tactful and move with the highest level of diplomacy.
Our location at the crossroads of the west and the east, and the north and south also plays a strategic role. But that leaves us open to a variety of potential threats.
We keep cordial relations with other nations and, especially our regional neighbours and partners, and, at the same time, we have to look after our own interests and existence.
With the current challenges the world is facing, how are we positioning and preparing ourselves and consistently maintaining high alert on the \"goings on\"? Are we reviewing our bilateral, multilateral, regional and global relationships and contributions?
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, Singaporeans' travels are increasing in frequency and range. More Singaporeans are also living and working abroad these days. We are also living in a period of greater uncertainty, as we had witnessed in the spate of terror attacks from Europe to the Middle East, and even here in Southeast Asia last year. These trends and recent global developments mean that the load and complexity of consular cases that MFA has to handle will increase correspondingly.
At the same time, there is growing public expectation for speedier services and assistance. However, our resources are finite. I note that MFA has only 50 resident Overseas Missions and that most Missions generally operate with very lean teams.
Notwithstanding these operational challenges, I wish to commend our MFA officers for their professionalism and dedication in working around the clock, especially during crises and emergencies, to provide the necessary support to affected Singaporeans and their families. It is thanks to their hard work that many Singaporeans are able to travel overseas with the necessary assurances and peace of mind. I am sure that many Singaporeans who have received help from MFA in one way or another, would agree with me.
Hence, I would like to ask how MFA has been addressing the challenges I mentioned earlier in the increasingly unpredictable environments we find ourselves in. How are MFA officers equipping themselves to ensure that Singaporeans continue to receive quality consular services? Does MFA have back-up teams on standby in various regions to swing into action in the event of large scale emergencies? How does MFA facilitate the transmission of experience from older and retired MFA staff to their younger colleagues? Is there room for retired MFA staff and Singaporeans living overseas to assist or contribute to our Missions in their operations on a volunteer basis? What is the role of our Missions in fostering ties with Singaporeans living or working overseas? Also, what travel advice should Singaporeans take note of, especially those who travel frequently?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Thank you. Twenty sixteen was a tumultuous year for the world and a very busy year for MFA staff. The previous global consensus on the benefits of free trade and economic integration is broken. Unfortunately, unlike in this House, political discourse in many countries has become increasingly nationalistic, anti-incumbent and, even sometimes, xenophobic. The threat from terrorism, radicalisation and extremism has increased and new media has also amplified this threat far and wide.
Quite frankly, we have to anticipate even more of such external challenges and challenges that will test our resolve, unity and agility.
As a small city state, Singapore has no option. Isolation and protectionism are not an option for us. In fact, the world is even more interconnected than ever before. We actually have to double down on globalisation.
The economic headwinds and global protectionist sentiments are not going to go away soon and they will have serious implications on our trade-dependent economy. We are probably the only country where our trade volume is three and a half times our GDP. So, for us, free trade is not a debating point. It is our lifeblood. If you think about it, the larger context of this Budget debate, of the Committee of Supply (COS) and of the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) is that we have to enhance the competitive position of Singapore and Singaporeans. That is the only way we can survive and thrive in this uncertain world.
Add to that the fact that major power interactions and rivalry will impact our region and will impact us, and we have seen evidence of that. The question, therefore, that all Members have posed is: how will we navigate these challenges?
Our fundamental realities remain. We are still a tiny island in an uncertain neighbourhood. We still have to try our best to build a network of friends. We have to be a relevant, valuable and reliable partner and, at the same time, be realistic about our place in the world. As the former British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston once pointed out, nations have no permanent friends or allies; they only have permanent interests.
Our key foreign policy principles, therefore, have not changed. First, we conduct an independent sovereign foreign policy in order to safeguard our independence and the interests of all Singaporeans. Second, we promote ASEAN unity and centrality. And third, we have to remain committed to a rules-based international system.
Finally, foreign policy begins at home, and the effectiveness of our foreign policy depends on us being a successful nation-state and on the continued support of a united citizenry. And one point which I want to commend today − I have listened to the very thoughtful speeches from Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Pritam Singh − and I am grateful for the bipartisan support that we have in this House. This unity of purpose is essential for us to pursue our foreign policy goals in this uncertain and volatile environment. All Members of this House understand and appreciate the key tenets of our policy.
Many Members have asked questions about Singapore's long-term value proposition and the relevance of Singapore to other countries. Ms Sun Xueling asked about Singapore-China relations; Mr Cedric Foo asked about the US-Singapore relations under the new Trump administration; Mr Amrin Amin and Dr Chia Shi-Lu have asked for updates on our relations with Malaysia and Indonesia. All of these are key relationships.
Let me deal first with China. Singapore has been a steadfast and long-standing friend of China. Our bilateral relationship right now, I would describe it as in \"good working order\". In November 2015, when President Xi Jinping came here, we signed an agreement which characterised our relationship as an \"All-Round Cooperative Partnership Progressing with the Times\". Put aside the words, the point is, historically, our relationship has been built on the strong foundations laid by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Deng Xiaoping.
And over the decades, Singapore has supported, and demonstrated in action and investment, China's peaceful development and its progressive engagement of the regional and international community. We do so because we believe that China's success is good, first, for the citizens of China; it is also good for the region and it is good for us.
I am always amazed that tiny Singapore currently is China's largest foreign investor, and we have been so since 2013. China is Singapore's largest trading partner also since 2013.
Several Cabinet Members, including myself, had just accompanied Deputy Prime Minister Teo to Beijing. We came back just two days ago. We attended the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC). It was a very good meeting and it gave both sides opportunities to explore ways to deepen cooperation especially in this flagship project of President Xi Jinping, the Belt and Road initiative. I also had a very good meeting with my counterpart, and I can say that this, again, is a reflection of the deep resilient nature of our relationship.
Our third and latest Government-to-Government project, the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative, has been designated a priority demonstration project for the \"Belt and Road\", and will play a catalytic role in linking up Western China − both to Southeast Asia, as well as across to Central Asia and beyond.
Besides the JCBC, we also have candid exchanges and sharing of experiences through established platforms, such as the China-Singapore Forum on Leadership and the Singapore-China Social Governance Forum.
The various projects, the business engagements, the people-to-people ties. You have heard: 2.8 million Chinese tourists come to Singapore and I think, for us, it would be 800,000 Singaporeans who have travelled to China in a year. The high frequency of interactions at senior leadership level has conferred a very high degree of resilience and, I would add, strategic trust, in our relationship.
Therefore, even when we have differences over some issues, as I have said in an earlier session, we should not overact and we should, in a sense, anticipate that these incidents are not unusual even amongst close friends and neighbours, and we must recognise that our shared interests far exceed these differences. We must not be distracted from the larger strategic imperatives or allow incidents to derail the substantive, longstanding and mutually-beneficial cooperation.
Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will elaborate on the more specific details of our relationship with China, as well as give you an update on the JCBC after this.
Let me turn now to the US. There is a new administration; it is settling in. There is always a period of uncertainty, a period of adjustment that goes on both domestically and also at the international level when a new administration takes over, basically because the US is such an important superpower.
As far as Singapore is concerned, we believe that our many decades of consistent policies and interactions with the US have created trust and I believe they consider us a reliable partner. I am confident that we will be creative and adaptable in developing win-win partnerships with the US even as President Trump pursues a new set of policies.
We have had a strong and enduring base of relations for the last 51 years. These mutually-beneficial ties have spanned five Republican and four Democratic administrations.
On the economic front, the US is Singapore's fourth largest trading partner in goods and our top trading partner in services. The US is also Singapore's largest foreign direct investor. Singapore is the US' fourth largest Asian investor, after Japan, Australia and the ROK.
On the defence front, our Air Force has training detachments in Texas, Idaho and Arizona. The US is a significant user of both Changi Naval Base and Paya Lebar Air Base. And Singapore also supports the rotational deployment of the US Littoral Combat Ships and the P8 Poseidon aircraft.
These fundamentals of our relationship remain unchanged and their value is recognised by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Similarly, the strategic and economic imperatives that have underpinned America's longstanding engagement of our region actually remain unchanged. We have to constantly look for new areas of convergence for win-win cooperation with the US. For instance, one of the more recent things we are working on is on cybersecurity and we signed an MOU on Cybersecurity Cooperation in 2016.
Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Low Thia Khiang also asked some searching questions about how the relationship between China and the US will impact Singapore. Indeed, this is the key bilateral relationship that will affect peace, security and prosperity in our region and, indeed, the world.
Whilst competition between the US and China is inevitable, but what is different in historical terms is that never before have two powers been so interdependent, so intertwined economically. Even in the depths of the Cold War, remember that the American and Russian economies were never intertwined to the same degree that the US and Chinese economies are. Therefore, we hope that both sides, after they have measured these imperatives, will come back to the same conclusion that constructive engagement and win-win cooperation are the right formula. If they can achieve this, this will provide space for countries in the region, including Singapore, to be part of a common circle of friends and achieve win-win outcomes for all.
This is, in fact, a key reason why for the last 51 years, Southeast Asia, in particular, the founding members of ASEAN, have enjoyed peace, security, prosperity over the last five decades. We hope that they will arrive at this conclusion. But we should also bear in mind that we have no say. We cannot determine the dynamics of that relationship.
Mr Low asked: what do we do if they do not get along? And the answer is that, number one, we have no say; number two, we should avoid being forced to choose sides for as long as possible.
The third point is that we must always remain an honest broker. What that means is, whatever I tell the Secretary of State of the US, I must also be prepared to take the same consistent position with the Foreign Minister of China. I do not say two different things and hope that they never compare notes. We have to be clear, consistent and transparent in our communications.
The other point is to try to do as much as possible on a bilateral basis with both China and the US and, if possible, in third-party projects in other parts of the world. Again, it is a matter of maintaining strategic consistency while having tactical agility. I do not want to trivialise it and say that this will be very easy − it will not be – but watch this space, we will come back to you and update you as things progress, and I hope that all Members of the House, including the Opposition, will continue to support MFA.
Closer to home, our relationship with Malaysia is actually as good as it ever has been. More recently, we reached a milestone by signing the Agreement on the KL-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) in December 2016. This is a landmark agreement that will transform the way both countries interact and do business. It will bring our two peoples and economies even closer together.
In addition to the HSR, we are also looking to sign a bilateral agreement on this Singapore-JB Rapid Transit System (RTS) this year. The RTS will improve the flow of people and business between Singapore and Johor and bring both sides closer together.
On the whole, our bilateral relations are excellent. Other than these connectivity initiatives, the economic and people-to-people ties remain strong. We will continue to cooperate on security, defence and counter-terrorism.
Mr Baey Yam Keng and others asked about the Pedra Branca case and how this impacts our bilateral relations. Part of what underpins our good relations with Malaysia is a commitment by both sides to resolve disagreements amicably in accordance with international law while allowing mutually-beneficial cooperation to continue in the meantime. So, you will recall that in 2003, Singapore and Malaysia agreed to submit the case concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
In its judgment dated 23 May 2008, the ICJ found that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore, sovereignty over Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia and sovereignty over South Ledge belonged to the state in the territorial waters of which it is located.
On 2 February 2017, Malaysia applied for a revision of the judgment under Article 61 of the ICJ's Statute.
Under Article 61, an application for revision of a judgment must satisfy several criteria. These criteria include that it must be based upon the discovery of facts which were unknown to the court and to the party claiming revision when judgment was first given; and these newly-discovered facts must be decisive and of such a character as to lay the case open to revision. An application for revision must also be made, at the latest, within six months of the discovery of the new fact and within 10 years of when the judgment was given.
Our legal team has studied Malaysia's application carefully, including the three documents relied on by Malaysia to support its application. Our legal team strongly believes that the documents relied on by Malaysia do not satisfy the criteria under Article 61. We will submit to the ICJ our comprehensive and compelling rebuttal to Malaysia's application by 14 June, which is the time limit fixed by the ICJ.
We are confident of our legal team and our case.
We are very fortunate to still have Prof Jayakumar, Senior Judge Chan Sek Keong and Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh who led our original Pedra Branca team. They are also working very hard now, very enthusiastically, I may add. They are also working with a younger team of bright legal minds in the AGC. This way, we are also using this episode as an opportunity to build up expertise and experience in the next generation. Succession again.
This is important as I am sure there will be more international legal issues in the future. Equally, we must ensure that the same whole-of-Government spirit of unity prevails. These are crucial ingredients in order for Singapore to punch above our weight at international fora.
Singapore is committed to resolving this issue amicably and in accordance with international law.
Bilateral relations with Malaysia, therefore, are good, will remain good, and we will continue with all our mutually beneficial bilateral programmes.
Singaporeans should not be disconcerted by these developments because, even with the best of diplomatic and personal relationships, we must expect other states to act in their own self-interests.
Our relations with Indonesia are also strong. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President Joko Widodo had a successful Leaders' Retreat in Semarang last November. They jointly witnessed the opening of the Kendal Industrial Park, and agreed to set up an Indonesia-Singapore Business Council and to explore cooperation in both the energy and tourism sectors.
The positive and stable relationship that we have enjoyed in recent times has been mutually beneficial. Business ties and tourism continue to grow. Singapore remains Indonesia's top foreign investor in 2016.
This year, we celebrate 50 years of diplomatic relations with Indonesia. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ibu Retno Marsudi, and I announced the start of the celebrations last month during her official visit to Singapore.
We also marked a milestone in bilateral relations through the exchange of instruments of ratification for the Eastern Boundary Treaty on 10 February 2017. This was a demonstration of how both countries can work together to resolve bilateral issues in areas of mutual interest, in accordance with international law. This is an important principle that both sides share because, as neighbours, we must expect disagreements to arise from time to time, but what matters is how we resolve these disagreements.
Singapore and Brunei, of course, share a longstanding and a special relationship, anchored in deep mutual trust and respect, which have been built up over decades, over generations of leaders. This is epitomised by the Currency Interchangeability Agreement, which marks its 50th anniversary this year.
We will continue to build on this special relationship with the younger generation of Bruneian leaders though platforms like the Singapore-Brunei Young Leaders Programme.
More broadly, Southeast Asia is our immediate hinterland. And as many Members have said, ASEAN serves a crucial role as the main platform for regional cooperation. ASEAN has kept our region peaceful and allowed Member States to focus on growing our economies and improving the lives of our people. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Low Thia Khiang asked very timely and important questions about ASEAN's relevance, the pace of integration, the future of ASEAN unity and the key achievements as we celebrate its 50th anniversary. Mr Cedric Foo and others also asked about our coordinatorship of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations.
ASEAN enables us to more effectively shape our external environment and to have our views taken into account by bigger players. In an often turbulent world, ASEAN is, as Mr Low puts it, Singapore's anchor and a cornerstone of our foreign policy.
ASEAN has a strong value proposition. We are now already the seventh largest economy in the world and, barring any mishaps, we are projected to become the fourth largest economy by 2050. Today, we have 628 million people, our combined GDP is US$2.5 trillion and, sometime between 2030 and 2050, we hope that this will quadruple to US$10 trillion. What is important also is that we will have the third largest labour force in the world and, more important than that, more than half the population of ASEAN is under the age of 30. We have a demographic dividend that is not yet harvested.
To maintain our relevance, ASEAN must continue to be neutral, to be united and to be committed to an open and inclusive regional architecture, and that means we have to continue to consolidate and deepen our economic integration.
We adopted the ASEAN Community Vision 2025 and the three Community Blueprints in 2015.
We must do more to help Singaporeans better understand and identify with ASEAN. We must also explore ways for ASEAN to ride the technological wave of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
We will continue to partner with organisations like the Singapore Business Federation and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises to help our businesses maximise the economic opportunities ASEAN presents.
We will also work closely with the Philippines to ensure the success of its Chairmanship this year, and to begin preparations for our own ASEAN Chairmanship in 2018.
It is important that we strive for an integrated, outward-looking and confident ASEAN. To that end, we hope to build new links with other regional organisations, for instance, the Pacific Alliance and the Eurasian Economic Union.
At the same time, the events unfolding in the EU are also a salutary reminder for us not to reprise their problems, and ASEAN must remain pragmatic and practical in managing the pace and the scale of the implementation of our economic integration. The sequence, the pace and the scale − the implementation of all of these are very important.
ASEAN's cohesion and unity, to be frank with you, have been tested by difficult issues, not only just last year but many times before. Nonetheless, we have endured and we have even thrived over the past five decades.
Looking ahead, ASEAN will become more, not less, critical to our foreign policy. I totally support Dr Teo Ho Pin's three suggestions on strengthening unity, promoting partnerships between businesses and encouraging more people-to-people ties.
Now let me turn to our role as the Dialogue Relations coordinator between ASEAN and China. Again, I want to stress that we have to be honest brokers. We have to do our best to manage this strategic partnership based on mutual benefit and respect. We upgraded the ASEAN-China FTA in 2015 and we facilitated a successful and substantive ASEAN-China 25th Anniversary Commemorative Summit last year. We will continue advancing other initiatives, such as enhancing connectivity and making progress on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, in the remaining one and a half years of our coordinatorship.
Relations with other countries − Japan, India, Australia and the EU − are also important, and I am glad to report that relations are also good and will deepen.
We commemorated 50 years of diplomatic relations with Japan in 2016. We had a series of high-level exchanges, including a State Visit by President Tony Tan. We are working towards upgrading the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement and our Air Services Agreement, and we hope to strengthen bilateral cooperation in air, land and sea transport and infrastructure through the inaugural Vice-Ministerial Transport Forum this year.
In India, steady progress has been made under the Strategic Partnership signed when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited us in November 2015. The Strategic Partnership has allowed us to broaden and deepen relations in diverse areas, both at the centre as well as in selected states in India.
This was reaffirmed during Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's visit to India in October 2016, when he launched the Centre of Excellence for Tourism Training (CETT) in Udaipur.
The master-planning of Andhra Pradesh's new capital city, Amaravati, by Singapore experts has been completed, and a Singapore consortium is now bidding to participate in the \"seed development\" of this brand new city.
Singapore has a close and longstanding bilateral relationship with Australia. This was elevated in June 2015 with the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP), and this is a substantive undertaking with over 40 bilateral initiatives that will be delivered through the period to 2025.
We have moved quickly to implement the CSP. Key agreements were signed during the Prime Minister's visit to Australia in October 2016.
The MOU on Military Training and Training Area Development gives the SAF significant enhanced access to training areas in Australia over the next 25 years. Areas which, I may add, are multiples the size of Singapore. This will add significantly towards addressing the SAF's evolving training requirements.
The upgrade to the Singapore-Australia FTA is expected to come into force this year. It will create many more opportunities for Singapore businesses and professionals to access the Australian markets.
Brexit notwithstanding, we continue to engage Europe and the EU, for example, through the EU-Singapore FTA. Yes, it has been delayed by certain legal hurdles that we have to go through, but, so far, all the countries that we have engaged in Europe have expressed support for this FTA. We are also working on the EU-ASEAN Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement.
Singapore will also continue to seek economic links and opportunities for our companies in emerging markets, such as Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Senior Minister of State Dr Maliki will elaborate on this, after I have finished my contribution.
Let me just say the following short points on the Middle East.
We are one of the few countries that engage in a principled way with all the protagonists in the Middle East. In the short one and a half years that I have been here, I have accompanied the Prime Minister to Jordan, Israel and Ramallah, under the Palestine National Authority (PNA). We have gone to the Temple Mount, visited the Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, been welcomed by all parties.
It is amazing, if you think about it: us, tiny little Singapore, is welcomed by all parties.
I believe we have this special position because we take a principled position. And we also work in a win-win way to support all parties. For instance, with the Palestinians, we have extended our technical assistance with the PNA. But more importantly, I think, one of the key secret ingredients is the fact that Singapore itself is a successful model of multiracial, multi-religious integration. Because that gives us a special moral standing to be able to engage, speak and interact with all parties. Very few countries have this special role that we have.
Apart from all these engagements, bilateral and regional, we need to continue to support international economic groupings and arrangements. These arrangements increase opportunities for Singapore companies and Singapore to do more in the face of a world which is sometimes at risk of insularism and protectionism.
We will work towards the expeditious conclusion of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and continue to pursue further development of the ASEAN Economic Community. We will explore ways to take the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) forward, despite the US' withdrawal.
Prime Minister Lee attended the G20 Summit in China last year at President Xi's invitation, and he will attend the G20 Summit in Hamburg in July this year at German Chancellor Angela Merkel's invitation. This will be the seventh time that Singapore is invited to attend a G20 Summit.
The next aspect that I want to talk about is how we pursue an independent foreign policy. This means having a foreign policy that serves Singapore's and Singaporeans' interests, first and foremost.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke about the importance of a rules-based international system. And this is critical for a small state like Singapore. He asked how we can strengthen the multilateral system.
As a small country, the rule of law is crucial for our survival. The UN and other international organisations and fora are key components of a rules-based international system. They create a stable framework for cooperation, for managing tensions and addressing global trans-boundary problems.
The multilateral system must become more inclusive, more transparent. Global solutions must have broad-based support from countries to be effective. On our part, we play our role by initiating or by catalysing the work of organisations like the Forum of Small States (FOSS) that we actually initiated, and the Global Governance Group (3G). And we work closely with many other small states to have a greater collective voice on the international stage.
We also contribute to the multilateral system through technical assistance to developing countries. I think we have trained over 112,000 officials from many other countries because they want to understand how Singapore works and how these lessons can be brought back home. Humanitarian assistance is important and we do contribute when there are disasters and, actually, it is this training, this development that makes a longer-term impact on many other countries.
Finally, I want to stress and repeat that foreign policy begins at home. We need the support and the understanding of a united citizenry. Ms Joan Pereira's question about how MFA can better engage the public on Singapore's foreign policy is very timely.
While MFA takes the lead in foreign policy, issues are becoming more complex and cross-cutting in nature. Other Ministries and Government agencies play an increasingly vital role on Singapore's external front. MFA must, therefore, act as a coordinator, work closely with other Ministries and agencies to pursue a whole-of-Government foreign policy and to strengthen our domestic resilience in the face of an uncertain and sometimes hostile external environment.
This also means convincing Singaporeans of the need for consistent and principled diplomacy for our long-term interests instead of taking the path of least resistance in order to achieve short-term gains. The events of the last six months is a reminder of this. I am grateful for the support of Singaporeans and of Members of this House.
We will continue to work with all stakeholders to raise awareness amongst our fellow Singaporeans of the stakes for us, of the principles behind our policy and of the sometimes difficult positions that we have to take, despite the pressures we will face from time to time.
Terrorism still remains a real and present threat. This is evidenced by high-profile attacks in parts of Europe and Southeast Asia. We are actually at even higher risk, even as ISIS loses its stronghold in the Middle East. MFA and MHA will continue to monitor security and terrorist threats, and we stand ready to assist Singaporeans in distress overseas.
We have had Singaporeans injured or otherwise involved in terrorist incidents overseas. Singaporeans are one of the most widely travelled people in the world. One of our top challenges is to strengthen our consular assistance. Senior Minister of State Dr Maliki will elaborate more on this later on.
A united citizenry allows us to pursue effective foreign policy. We may be small, but the unity of our people is a source of strength. Our stability, consistency and reliability are all the more valuable in an increasingly fractious world, and people respect Singapore for that.
Such respect is hard-earned, but it allows our voice to be amplified and be heard on the international stage.
I am grateful to Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Pritam Singh for their support for the staff of MFA and for adequate resources to be provided in the light of all these challenges. I totally agree with them that MFA staff must be well-staffed and well-resourced. Our MFA officers actually are the real key assets. Our budget may be the second smallest or the smallest of all the Ministries, but I think you will agree with me it is the staff of MFA.
We have a rigorous selection system. We continue to recruit high quality people. But we also provide continuous training to nurture our staff and to develop their leadership potential. We also regularly review our manpower resources and work functions to ensure that this precious manpower is deployed in an optimal way.
The work in MFA is very demanding and very labour-intensive and eats up all hours of the day and night. Our officers work under very challenging conditions and at great cost to their personal and perhaps, even more so, to their family lives. I would like to express my appreciation, especially to the spouses of MFA staff, and to their children who probably have absentee parents because their parents are out there looking after the longer-term interests of our nation. And they sacrifice so much for Singaporeans.
But our officers have proven themselves to be dedicated and professional. They are driven by their mission to advance the interests of Singapore. They understand our vulnerabilities and what we need to do in order to remain relevant.
Members of this House who have ever travelled with MFA staff, I am very sure you can attest to their professionalism and their hard work. I want to thank Members of the House for their continued support of MFA.
Let me conclude. The events of the past year have been a stark reminder of the reality that Singapore faces. But it has also provided lessons on how we can overcome these challenges. I think in a way, the pressure that we have come under has made us stronger and more united.
We will face another year of uncertainty ahead. MFA will continue to enhance Singapore's long-term value proposition and relevance to other countries; we will maintain our commitment to an independent and principled foreign policy in a rules-based global order; we will continue to work with all Members of this House to build a deeper appreciation of the hard truths that underpin our foreign policy.
The Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Chairman, let me start by addressing Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question on links with fellow ASEAN countries.
We have kept up strong links with our Southeast Asian partners through high-level exchanges. Last year, we hosted visits by newly inaugurated leaders such as Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Vietnam President Tran Dai Quang and Myanmar State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Often at the request of our friends, we shared our developmental experiences in diverse areas. For example, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is keen to relocate street hawkers and upgrade wet markets in Yangon. Therefore, when Minister Vivian hosted her to breakfast, the location was at Ghim Moh Market and Food Centre so that Daw Suu could experience a typical Singapore hawker centre for herself.
Besides hosting incoming visits, our leaders make regular visits to ASEAN neighbours. These include President Dr Tony Tan's recent State Visits to Cambodia and Laos and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's introductory visits to Thailand, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam.
In October last year, both President Tony Tan and Prime Minister Lee visited Thailand to pay their last respects to the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Reflecting our strong people-to-people ties, many Singaporeans joined in to mourn the revered late King. Our leaders also warmly congratulated the new King Maha Vajiralongkorn when he was anointed.
Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about strengthening our economic ties with Southeast Asian countries and how businesses can help. We made good progress on this last year. For example, Singapore and Myanmar mutually lifted visa requirements last December. There are now no visa requirements for all ASEAN nationals travelling to Singapore.
Similarly, with Laos, the launch of SilkAir's direct flights last October, along with the implementation of the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement this January, will create more opportunities for trade and investment. I also made a working visit to Vietnam in July 2016 to explore opportunities for our companies to invest in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, and to promote further liberalisation of our bilateral Air Services Agreement.
We encourage businesses to seek out opportunities for trade and investment in all our ASEAN neighbours. Their projects add substance to our relations. Businesses should also respect the laws and local officials of their host countries and strive to be good partners. If I may add, countries from outside the region are increasingly keen to partner Singapore companies for projects in Southeast Asia because of the local knowledge and the familiarity with these markets. These partnerships are the best way to ensure that Singaporeans and Singapore companies continue to be welcomed and ties between our countries continue to grow.
I will now elaborate on Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's comments on our cooperation with China and address Ms Sun Xueling's question on navigating the opportunities and challenges in our bilateral relations with China.
Singapore has been a steadfast and long-standing partner and friend of China.
Several Ministers and I have just returned from Beijing where the 13th Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) co-chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli was just concluded. Vice Premier Zhang and the Chinese leaders we met called Singapore an \"old and good friend\" of China.
The size of the delegations on both sides and the range of agencies involved show just how broad our cooperation is. Especially in economic cooperation, the ties are also very deep. Since 2013, Singapore has been China's largest foreign investor and China our largest trading partner.
Financial cooperation has also deepened. Singapore is now one of the largest offshore RMB centres outside Greater China.
All three of our Government-to-Government projects, namely the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city and the China-Singapore (Chongqing) Demonstration Initiative on Strategic Connectivity or Chongqing Connectivity Initiative, CCI in short, have supported China's developmental priorities at different stages of their growth.
At the JCBC meeting, both sides agreed that China's Belt and Road initiative presents new areas for fruitful cooperation, such as in infrastructure development and third-country capacity building.
In particular, the CCI serves as a priority demonstration project for the Belt and Road initiative by developing transport corridors linking western China and Southeast Asia. Apart from physical connectivity, we are discussing ways to enhance financial connectivity to support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank's initiatives, as well as human resource development, to uplift capabilities in countries along the \"Belt and Road\". I will elaborate on these areas in Mandarin. Mr Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore has been a steadfast and long-standing partner and friend of China. Bilateral relations started long before the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1990. The warm and long-standing friendship between our two countries owes much to the foundation laid by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Deng Xiaoping and the continued efforts by successive generations of leaders and officials from both sides.
I was fortunate to have been involved in building our relations with China from a fairly early stage. As a young EDB officer in the mid-1990s, I was posted to Suzhou for two years to help develop the SIP project. The early days were fraught with difficulties. But the process of working through many challenges together made our relationship more resilient.
Today, the SIP is one of China's top development zones and townships and a model for other industrial parks. I have also made many good Chinese friends and we still keep in touch.
When I was CEO of Business China, I saw first-hand the foresight of our leaders. With guidance from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, many Ministers contributed to efforts to groom a bilingual and bicultural group of Singaporeans who could understand and interact effectively with China.
In MFA since late 2015, I now see the intensity of our engagements from another lens. We have one embassy and four consulates-general in mainland China, which is the highest number of overseas missions we have in a single country.
The regularity of high-level visits and the frequency of bilateral consultations with China are also unmatched by any other country.
I am glad that these exchanges with Chinese officials and cadres are continuing. For example, the China-Singapore Forum on Leadership was launched in 2009 and has held five meetings thus far. The co-chairs of the Forum on Leadership, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, and Central Organisation Department Minister Zhao Leji met recently in Beijing on the sidelines of the JCBC. They agreed that the exchanges at the Forum on Leadership are valuable in addressing common challenges, such as a rapidly ageing population. Minister Zhao also agreed to Deputy Prime Minister Teo's invitation to attend the 6th Forum on Leadership in Singapore this year to continue the exchanges.
Besides the JCBC and Forum on Leadership, the Singapore-China Social Governance Forum was launched in 2012. The third round of this Forum was held in Singapore in May last year, co-chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Political and Legal Affairs Commission Secretary Meng Jianzhu. We exchanged learning points on strategies to maintain security and social harmony in an increasingly urbanised society, the use of big data and IT to improve governance, as well as ensuring access to justice and the rule of law.
The depth and intensity of our bilateral cooperation, which includes the three G-to-G projects and three high-level bilateral mechanisms, underscores the fundamental point that our relations have always kept up with the times, taking into account China's changing needs. Other non-government organisations, such as the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry as well as Business China, have also made important contributions to the development of bilateral relations.
Indeed, this spirit is encapsulated in the \"All Round Cooperative Partnership Progressing with the Times\" agreed to by Prime Minister Lee and President Xi in 2015. Singapore has been a consistent and strong supporter of China's peaceful development and engagement of the regional and international community.
We supported China's accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001. In 2004, we recognised China as a market economy and supported its participation in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the establishment of dialogue relations with ASEAN.
We are one of the earliest supporters of China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Belt and Road initiative.
We are very encouraged by President Xi's comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos and United Nations in Geneva that we should promote inclusive globalisation against the backdrop of a volatile and uncertain world.
The strong reservoir of friendship and goodwill allows both sides to speak candidly with one another and discuss concrete ways to elevate the relationship.
This is seen in our discussion on China's Belt and Road initiative. Singapore has proposed three suggestions to our Chinese friends.
First, the Southern Transport Corridor linking Chongqing to the ASEAN region via Beibu Gulf in Guangxi can help connect the overland Silk Route Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.
Second, greater trade, digital and financial connectivity along the Belt and Road will create investment opportunities and enhance the flow of goods and capital.
Third, Singapore and China can explore cooperation in joint training for officials from third countries along the Belt and Road. Such development in human capital will catalyse growth and help accelerate the Belt and Road projects.
These ideas were welcomed by our Chinese counterparts at the JCBC and both sides have agreed to flesh out the proposals.
The title of Deputy Prime Minister Teo's recent interview with Xinhua, \"New Initiatives to deepen Singapore-China Friendship(新中友谊深, 共创新思路)” captured the friendship and future cooperation between our two countries very well. With our deep friendship and mutual trust as a strong foundation for our bilateral relations, we will forge a path forward with new areas of mutually-beneficial cooperation.
We will further strengthen our special ties with China as we write the next chapter of our bilateral cooperation. Our ties with China are in good working order, resilient and well-primed for the future. As Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli summarised eloquently at the close of the JCBC, our bilateral relations will attain new heights.
Mdm Chair, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan spoke about our relations with several key partners, including India, Australia, Japan and the EU. Let me elaborate on others.
(In English): As Mr Zainal Sapari mentioned, besides Japan, we also have a deepening partnership with the Republic of Korea. We share similar challenges, such as an ageing population and low birth rates. As we embark on the Smart Nation Initiative, it is also useful for us to learn from Korea, which has a clear edge in IT and innovation in Asia.
Further afield, the Minister spoke about our partnership with the EU in response to Mr Saktiandi's question.
Indeed, Brexit is a turning point for the EU and has global consequences for trade. Much will depend on the new relationship the UK establishes with the EU and how the UK replicates the existing agreements that the EU has with partners like Singapore.
We will maintain our excellent ties with the UK, a long-standing partner in sectors, such as trade, defence, science and technology, and education. On the economic front, Singapore companies continue to have strong interest in the UK.
Not only is Europe a key market, we can also learn from various European countries in innovation, education and skills development, areas critical for the next phase of our economic development. We intend to maintain the momentum of our high-level exchanges. For example, the Prime Minister is scheduled to visit Germany, and the President will make State Visits to Poland and the Czech Republic later this year. We look forward to hosting President François Hollande of France in Singapore later this month.
While the EU has its own domestic preoccupations, we are hopeful that the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agree (EUSFTA) will be ratified so that both sides can benefit from it. We have been actively engaging the EU and member countries on this.
Mr Louis Ng asked about Singapore's humanitarian assistance to other countries and whether MFA should set up a new department of Foreign Humanitarian Aid, akin to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
Singapore takes our international responsibilities and commitments seriously. As a small country with resource constraints, we want our contributions to humanitarian relief to be both sustainable and useful. Our humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts are well coordinated within MFA, across relevant agencies, such as MINDEF and SCDF, and with external partners. Recent examples include our contribution to the recovery efforts after the earthquake in Ecuador in April 2016, the floods and landslides in Sri Lanka in June 2016 and Hurricane Matthew in Haiti in October 2016. We also contributed to the humanitarian and relief efforts for the victims of irregular movement of persons through the ASEAN Secretariat in September 2016.
In addition, MFA contributes annually to key international organisations that oversee and spearhead humanitarian efforts. These include the UN Central Emergency Response Fund and the International Committee for the Red Cross, among others. Since 2015, we have also been partnering the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) in providing joint training courses to strengthen the disaster risk management capacity of Small Island Developing States and other developing countries.
Members can be assured that even with limited resources, MFA has a system in place to provide humanitarian assistance in a prompt and coordinated manner. At this juncture, we prefer not to divert further resources to set up a separate department or agency for humanitarian assistance.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about ways to improve the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) and how it has helped other countries. Singapore has benefited from the advice and experience of the UN and other countries, and the SCP is our way of giving back and paying it forward. This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the SCP, our primary platform for sharing our developmental experiences.
We now run, on average, more than 300 programmes for some 6,500 government officials from over 170 countries annually. Over the 25 years, more than 112,000 foreign officials have participated in the SCP. As Singapore continues to develop our capabilities, the SCP will also evolve its programmes. For example, we now offer high quality programmes in cybersecurity, digital economy and sustainable development.
To address Miss Cheng Li Hui's question, the SCP also enables us to cooperate with other countries and international agencies to address global issues, such as sustainable development and climate change.
Hence, we are partnering UN agencies and others to support the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. This year, we will collaborate with the UN Habitat to deliver an international programme in urban governance for mayors, governors and provincial leaders of African countries.
Closer to home, we are increasing our efforts to help fellow ASEAN countries bridge the development gap by offering capacity building beyond traditional classroom training under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI). We plan to upgrade the current IAI centres in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar to integrated development platforms called \"Singapore Cooperation Centres\".
Besides classroom training, these new centres will rope in other Singapore agencies with development expertise, such as the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore International Foundation and Singapore Cooperation Enterprise, to offer technical assistance through various consultancy services and volunteer projects. These will form part of our efforts to support Singapore's ASEAN Chairmanship in 2018.
Mr Chairman, I will now turn the floor over to Senior Minister of State Dr Mohamad Maliki.
The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Chairman, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan earlier explained the key lessons for Singapore's foreign policy as we navigate a more complex global environment today. It is important for Singapore to strengthen the trust we have built with our friends across the world. This trust will allow us to deepen cooperation with our partners, create opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans abroad and advance our interests internationally.
Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Edwin Tong have pointed out that emerging markets offer many opportunities for Singaporean businesses abroad.
Take Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, which offers opportunities for those with an appetite to venture into less familiar markets. During my visit to Ethiopia last year, I saw Ethiopia's efforts to position itself as Africa's industrial hub. Far from its earlier years of being known as a famine-stricken country, Ethiopia has enjoyed growth rates averaging 10% over the last decade and is now one of the world's top 10 fastest growing economies. MFA is working with MTI to explore economic opportunities in other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa in sectors like commodities, logistics, port development, urban solutions and information communications and technology. We currently have some 60 Singapore-based companies with business operations in over 40 Sub-Saharan Africa countries. This number is likely to grow in the coming years.
We are also making good progress in Latin America, where our trade has more than doubled over the past decade and about 130 companies are now doing business there. We continue to seek opportunities in other regions like South Asia, Central Asia, Russia and Turkey. For instance, we are negotiating the Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which will open doors for our businesses to expand into the vast South Asian market once concluded. We are also pursuing an FTA with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Comprising Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the EAEU has a combined market of 179 million people and a GDP of US$4.4 trillion. The Turkey-Singapore FTA, which is expected to be ratified this year, will allow our companies to leverage Turkey's strategic location to pursue investments in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
But our relationships with the emerging markets are not just economically driven. Over the years, we have developed good political and people-to-people exchanges. For example, President Tony Tan made a State Visit to Mexico in June 2016 − the first State Visit by a Singapore Head of State to Latin America. Minister Vivian will make an Official Visit to Argentina in April 2017. We have also hosted 96 Latin American journalists under the Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC) Journalists' Visit Programme over the last 17 years, which has created greater awareness about our societies, our policies and our culture in Latin America. For Sub-Saharan Africa, we hosted 10 ministers from the region last year to share how we tackle our urban challenges.
It also heartens me to see more Singaporeans going off the beaten track to pursue their interests in less familiar places. For example, last year, I met a lively young Singaporean lady who is studying theatre at the Waterfront Theatre School in South Africa. She told me that she was interested in African art and culture that led her to make such an unconventional choice. In Botswana, I was also pleasantly surprised to meet a tight-knit group of Singaporeans and learnt that several have been living there for more than a decade! One of the Singaporeans I met there had settled down in Botswana some 16 years ago and now operates a cow farm together with her Botswana husband. I am also glad to see our students participating in exchanges with universities in countries like Russia and Mexico. I encourage more Singaporeans to take the road less travelled, which will broaden their perspectives while helping Singapore extend our friendships across the world.
Let me move on to our engagement of the Middle East, which Mr Amrin Amin asked about.
Singapore enjoys friendly relations with countries in the Middle East and it is important to continue to engage them. Understanding the complex developments in the region is important to us as 15% of our population are Muslims, many of whom visit the Middle East for the haj and umrah and for religious and Arabic language classes and studies. Today, we have about 300 students studying in Egypt and about 130 students studying in Jordan.
With the Middle East presenting greater economic opportunities, more Singaporeans are working there in fields, such as hospitality, engineering, finance and transport and logistics in various countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman. In 2015, our Consulate-General in Dubai was designated as an overseas polling station for elections to make it easier for Singaporeans in the region to cast their votes. This is in recognition of the growing number of Singaporeans in that region. We also cooperate closely with some Middle Eastern countries in areas, such as education, environment and security. We recognise that the security situation in the Middle East will have implications for our region. That is why Singapore has contributed to the international coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while our Navy participates in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden.
There remains keen interest in the Middle East countries to learn from Singapore's development experience. Over the past three years, there were more than 100 study visits in areas such as urban planning, port management and education. Low oil prices have also forced the oil-dependent Middle East countries to implement economic reforms and diversify their economies. There continues to be opportunities in sectors where Singapore companies have expertise in, such as transport and logistics, healthcare, water technology and education.
As a small state, we maintain friendly ties with all who want to befriend us, including those from the Middle East. Prime Minister Lee visited Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories last year in April. During the trip, Prime Minister Lee invited the leaders of Jordan, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Israel to visit Singapore. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reciprocal visit took place just last week. Singapore and Israel have a longstanding relationship, dating back to when the Israelis helped us build up our SAF and thereby secure our independence and sovereignty. We look forward to welcoming the leaders from Jordan and the PNA to Singapore.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked about Singapore's position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Let me elaborate in Malay please, Mr Chairman.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Despite Singapore's close relations with Israel, we have taken a principled, consistent and long-standing position on the Israel-Palestine issue. We have good relations with both Israel and PNA, and many Arab countries. Although the situation is complex and progress is difficult, Singapore has always urged Israel and Palestine to resume direct negotiations and work towards a just and durable solution to this long-standing conflict.
This is because we are convinced that a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, however hard to achieve, is the only way to bring peace and security to both peoples.
During his visit to Israel last year and during Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent visit to Singapore, Prime Minister Lee had clearly articulated Singapore's long-standing and consistent position on the Middle East Peace Process, including our support for the two-state solution. While Singapore supports Israel's right to live within secure borders and in peace, at the same time, we also support the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland. We have consistently voted in favour of most of the Palestinian-related resolutions tabled at the UN General Assembly.
Singapore also enjoys friendly relations with the Palestinians. Over the years, Singapore leaders have made visits to Ramallah and we do our best to help the Palestinians rebuild their lives as well as develop their economy.
During the Prime Minister's visit to Ramallah in April last year, he also announced the doubling of our Enhanced Technical Assistance Package (ETAP) to the PNA from S$5 million to S$10 million.
To follow up on the Prime Minister's visit, I visited Ramallah, as well as Israel and Jordan, in November last year. During the visit, I informed the PNA leaders about the Government's appointment of Mr Hawazi Daipi as Singapore's Representative to the PNA to help coordinate our assistance to the PNA. They welcomed the appointment. Mr Hawazi has since made his first visit to the West Bank as Representative in January this year where he met a number of senior office holders and officials from the PNA. One of the officials, PNA Assistant Foreign Minister Mazen Shamia, expressed the Palestinian leadership's \"happiness and satisfaction\" with the \"remarkable development\" of ties between the Palestinians and Singapore.
During my visit to Ramallah, I had the opportunity to meet senior Palestinian alumni of our Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP). The SCP has trained over 260 Palestinian officials in various courses over the years. We welcome the Palestinians' interest in our SCP courses and are working closely with the PNA to identify the critical areas where Singapore can contribute to capacity-building in the Palestinian Territories, within our limited resources.
One of the areas where we may be able to assist the Palestinians is in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). With over a third of the Palestinian population under age 30, equipping these youths with skills relevant to the marketplace is critical to the economic development and viability of the Palestinian Territories. In this regard, we invited PNA Minister of Education and Higher Education Sabri Saidam to visit Singapore from 31 October to 2 November 2016 to learn more about Singapore's approach to TVET, while ITE Education Services visited the West Bank in January 2017 to conduct a TVET skills needs analysis for the Palestinians.
Following the Prime Minister's visit, we have received many requests for study visits and training courses in non-TVET fields, too. This year, we hope to welcome Palestinian officials to Singapore to study our industrial estate management policies, among others. Mr Hawazi is also planning to visit the Palestinian Territories later this year to explore further areas of cooperation between Singapore and the PNA.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin also asked about the impact of international conferences, such as the Conference for Peace in the Middle East, held in January this year. The Conference was held in Paris on 15 January 2017 and involved leaders and senior officials from some 70 countries. Although Singapore was not a member of the Conference, we are supportive of all efforts by the international community to facilitate the resumption of meaningful and direct negotiations towards a two-state solution, whereby Israel and Palestine can live side-by-side in peace and security.
(In English): Mr Chairman, as I have said earlier, developments in the Middle East have security implications for us. We have observed how ISIS has exported its ideology through the Internet and other social media platforms, radicalising individuals in the US, Europe and even here in Southeast Asia. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked how we are preparing to manage such a challenging security climate.
ISIS has suffered several military setbacks recently in Iraq and Syria. However, even as ISIS loses ground, returning fighters continue to pose a long-term threat to global security, as pointed out by several counter-terrorism experts. This region is not immune, with more than 1,000 Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos and even Singaporeans having gone to fight for ISIS. While we have our counter-terrorism strategy, Singapore cannot tackle this trans-border threat alone.
MFA will continue to keep up regular political exchanges and community engagement across our region. During my trip to Dhaka, Bangladesh, in October 2016, I shared Singapore's experiences with the local Muslim community over there and heard about their efforts to instil the correct message about Islam. We must continue working closely with foreign counterparts to share intelligence, coordinate approaches and encourage the exchange of best practices on how to counter radical ideologies.
In light of the spate of terror attacks across the globe, Ms Joan Pereira has asked how MFA is better preparing itself to help Singaporeans caught in crisis situations abroad. In 2016 alone, major consular incidents included the terror attacks in Brussels and Nice, the bombings and unrest in Turkey, earthquakes in the region and the Muar Bus Accident. With Singaporeans being one of the most well-travelled people in the world, this raises not only the volume but also the complexity of consular cases that MFA has to handle.
With finite resources, we have to work hard and be creative to respond to consular incidents quickly and effectively. Alongside a limited number of overseas missions, MFA officers are rostered 24/7 so that Singaporeans can contact MFA and vice versa during emergency situations. During the tragic bus accident that took place on the North-South Highway in Muar on Christmas Eve last year, MFA sent an officer quickly to reinforce the Singapore Consulate in Johor Bahru. Within 24 hours, the deceased and injured were repatriated back to Singapore.
We are also enhancing our MFA@SG app to include a safety check feature to allow e-registrants to update MFA on their safety status using their mobile devices during crisis situations. We are expanding our IT platforms to allow e-Registration and safety checks using chat-bots. It will soon be easier to find information on our websites through a Virtual Assistant.
We urge Singaporeans to do their part and take the necessary precautions by staying vigilant, purchasing travel insurance, and staying in touch with family and friends so that they know you are safe during your travels. Importantly, we urge Singaporeans to e-Register with MFA when travelling, either through our MFA website or the MFA@SG app. There is a huge disparity between the 400,000 e-registrants we have on record and the 7.5 million outbound trips made by Singaporeans via air and sea in 2016 and this excludes the over 16 million overland travels to Malaysia annually. E-registrants will receive information on how to contact our nearest overseas mission and MFA can quickly contact e-registered Singaporean travellers during emergencies to ascertain the need for urgent assistance. So, I cannot emphasise again how important it is for Singaporeans to e-register.
Currently, about eight out of 10 calls that MFA receives during emergency situations are from the next-of-kin of Singaporeans who did not e-register. For instance, one citizen who was in the locality of a man-made disaster in China complained that other Singaporeans were contacted by MFA to ascertain their safety, but wondered why MFA had missed contacting him. But when we investigated, we realised that he had not e-registered so there was no way MFA could know that he was in the area at that time. If more of these Singaporeans had e-registered, it would allow us to more quickly verify if they have been confirmed safe or if they require urgent assistance.
In many emergency situations, e-registration has allowed us to contact affected Singaporeans, and one incident last year comes to mind. During the attempted coup in Turkey in July 2016, MFA contacted all registered Singaporeans in the affected areas and monitored the situation closely. As a 13-member youth football team and some of their parents were also stranded in Antalya due to the closure of the Istanbul airport, MFA worked with SIA to facilitate their departure from Antalya to Gothenburg, Sweden, so that they could arrive in time for the Gothia World Youth Cup 2016.
In the same month, 86 people were killed after a terrorist drove a cargo truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France. Similarly, MFA contacted all registered Singaporeans in France to verify their safety. After ascertaining that a Singaporean student was seriously injured during that attack, our Embassy staff was on the ground to extend consular assistance to the Singaporean and his parents who had flown to Nice to be with him.
On that note, I would like to thank Ms Joan Pereira for commending our MFA officers for their dedication in discharging their consular duties. The nature of consular work is challenging and complex. Our officers often work hard around the clock to provide support to distressed Singaporeans abroad. But what keeps the officers going is the knowledge that they are helping fellow Singaporeans.
I would like to share a heartening note that a Singaporean wrote to us after MFA had assisted with the repatriation of his deceased relative. He wrote, \"When I contacted MFA to get more information on the unfortunate bus crash, not only did they give me the information I needed, it was because of the aid MFA rendered that my family was able to return safely to Singapore. We would not have been able to go through this on our own and we will always remember how MFA had our back. The MFA team was professional, polite and considerate even when we were in so much distress. Thank you very much.\"
Sir, on behalf of the MFA family, I would like to thank Members of the House and all Singaporeans for their support to MFA as we advance Singaporeans' interests internationally.
The Chairman:\tIf there are no clarifications, Mr Vikram Nair, would you like to withdraw your amendment? Mr Low Thia Khiang, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang:\tSir, I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, while Singapore believes in rules-based diplomacy, other countries Singapore has to deal with may believe in power-based diplomacy. What will be the Minister's approach, facing such a counterpart? The second clarification is whether the Minister anticipates difficulties in this year's ASEAN Summit with the Philippines as the Chair of ASEAN?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I think this tension between a rules-based world order and a power-based world order will always be there. When I meet my counterparts, I explain to them that because we are a tiny city state and we live in a tough neighbourhood, Singapore has no choice but to subscribe to international laws. So, as a matter of principle, we stand for it.
Secondly, in terms of practice, if you look at, for instance, the Pedra Branca issue, or the Points of Agreement (POA) issue, we have ourselves availed and abided by international law and the legal processes that it provides. So, we take that stand.
But I will also tell Members, quite frankly, that big superpowers sometimes − and it is not only one; all of them, if you look through international jurisprudence − have, from time to time, taken liberties with international law. We have to quietly, non-provocatively just stand up to state our position. But we are in no position to enforce it. The ultimate challenge in international law is enforcement. That is actually very difficult, and it is impossible to enforce international law, except through moral suasion and through mutual agreement between countries.
The Member's second point was on ASEAN Chairmanship. I would express full support for the Chairmanship of ASEAN under the Philippines. We just had the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat two weeks ago. We should be able to get through this year successfully. I give my full assurance of support to the Philippines.
Mr Vikram Nair: Thank you, Chairman. This is a clarification. I thank the Minister and Senior Ministers of State for giving us a world tour of what Singapore is doing everywhere. I have two clarifications. In fact, they both relate to relations with the US and China.
First, I think Singapore has always found a way to look for opportunities in the midst of adversity or difficult situations. So, what opportunities does MFA see with the new US administration? I know that it is still starting; it is finding its feet. But what are the possible opportunities we can have to build bridges and do things together with the US?
In relation to China, I also see some seeds of opportunities because in recent months China has actually been talking about the importance of holding up environmental legislation. It seems to be that China itself may be open to persuasion that international norms and rules are important, vital, and will be the way forward. Is there any opportunity that we can persuade more people that rules-based international order is in everyone's best interest?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: As I have explained just now, I think the outlook of US policies and programmes is still evolving. The most recent speech by President Trump to the Joint Session of Congress was a far more positive and far more, I would say, conciliatory speech. We look forward to those sentiments being translated into policy and actions.
If you also parse his comments carefully, he says he is pro-business. He also says he believes in free trade, but he wants it to be fair trade. I think this is actually not an unreasonable position. In fact, it is the duty of every national trade negotiator – you engage in either bilateral or regional negotiations to make sure that the terms of the agreement are fair and actually improve the overall position of your own country. The point is it is the duty of your own negotiator to secure the best terms possible.
Secondly, when you enter into these negotiations, there is always going to be give-and-take. An important point about trade – and this is the political point – is that the advantages of free trade are sometimes not totally symmetrical with all segments of your population. Therefore, free trade has to be accompanied by domestic policy, which makes sure you address the needs of specific segments, especially the more vulnerable segments of your population.
That is why you see – and this is a larger point that goes beyond foreign policy − in case of Singapore, we say we have no choice but to operate the free trade system. But we also actually are very socialist when it comes to housing, education and healthcare. You see so much of the Budget policy actually being focused on vulnerable groups: people or segments of our population who would otherwise be vulnerable to the vagaries of free trade.
There is a complex interplay between domestic policy and foreign policy. If you can get your domestic policy right, it makes foreign policy and international trade so much easier.
I do not want to be cynical about the evolution of US policy. At the same time, I do not want to trivialise and assume everything will be hunky dory. I think, let us wait and see.
But every time we engage the US, we remind them that the last 70 years since the end of the Second World War has been, in a sense, a golden age for the world. Despite the Cold War, no nuclear weapons were fired in anger. Yes, there were proxy battles in the earlier part of the Cold War. But, actually, what you have seen, let us say, since 1978 in China, and 1991 in India, there has been an incredible upliftment of hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty.
How was this achieved? Through the free market, through bringing down barriers, through investing in infrastructure, through economic integration. This has allowed a win-win proposition to be played out across the entire world and allowed people to achieve peace, stability and prosperity, without war and without engaging in zero-sum rivalry.
The larger philosophical point we have to keep advancing on the international stage is to look for win-win outcomes and not to be trapped in prisoners' dilemmas or in zero-sum games. We advance this by being an honest broker, by being consistent in what we say and what we do, and by offering ourselves. People cannot copy our solutions but we say, \"Look at the way Singapore and the way ASEAN have progressed in the last 50 years. We think this is a good formula. You want to make adjustments? Of course, you need to make adjustments. But, substantially, the direction of interdependence, mutual cooperation, win-win outcomes is the correct strategic direction.\"
Did the Member have a second clarification?
The hon Member Mr Vikram Nair stood at his seat to repeat his second clarification.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:\tWe know our place in the world. We cannot persuade everyone. I think if we can get a critical mass to operate on a rules-based system, to operate free trade, accompanied by appropriate domestic safeguards and social security nets and then you prove it by succeeding. That is the most persuasive argument. Again, this is not a debate; it is not a form of words that will settle it.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tChairman, just a quick question for the Minister, and it follows from the point I made in the cut about the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) and the prospect of more consulates, more assistance for our businesses. I heard Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo speak about China and the number of consulates which we have in that country. Do we have similar plans for Southeast Asia and other regions of interest in general?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We do have plans. I cannot announce all of them yet. I think what I can say today is that we are planning to upgrade our consulates in Batam and Medan, because more people and more businesses are passing or transacting through Indonesia. Although we do have some other plans, I am not in the position to announce yet.
Again, I think the Member's larger point is that the demands on MFA are growing. I hope Members noticed that, in fact, our budget for this year is actually a bit less than last year. I do not say this in a facetious way, for it just illustrates how hard our staff are working.
There is also another secret recipe that we have, that is, we also have a system of non-resident Ambassadors. For that, we take people from outside the Civil Service, in the business sector and others, who know the countries and are able to carry the flag of Singapore high and open opportunities for other Singaporeans in an altruistic way. We are also blessed to have that additional element. We have incredible career officers, while we are also supplemented by a cadre of well-meaning, high-achieving Singaporeans.
The Chairman:\tMr Vikram Nair, if you do not have any more clarifications, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Vikram Nair: I would like to thank Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Senior Ministers of State Josephine Teo and Dr Mohamad Maliki. As I had said, they took us on a tour of the world but I think that really tells you how much hard work MFA has been doing. I think every continent except Antarctica − but there is a story there as well, I believe, which we just have not had time to share.
But the fact that Singapore as a small country has meaningful relationships with so many countries, is truly an achievement. I would like to record my thanks to MFA and to the staff. In true Singapore tradition, you deliver value-for-money, so it is a very small budget Ministry, 50 officers, but we make the most of what we have. And I personally must record my thanks to the MFA staff every time I have been on a trip with them. Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my cut.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $461,646,300 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $39,981,800 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan):\tMr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow\" [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:\tMr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2017/2018, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tSo be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t8.14 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Online Drug Peddling Offenders by Gender, Ethnicity and Family Income from 2014","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he will provide a breakdown of those arrested for online drug peddling by gender, ethnicity and family income since 2014; and (b) whether the Ministry has identified the factors that have led to a spike in the number of online drug peddling cases between 2014 and 2015.
Mr K Shanmugam: Law enforcement agencies worldwide face the growing challenge of online drugs sale. The anonymity provided by the Internet makes it more difficult to detect and apprehend the offenders. We also face this challenge in Singapore.
In 2016, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) arrested 201 persons for buying drugs and drug-related paraphernalia online. This was a significant increase from the 30 persons arrested in 2015 and the six arrested in 2014.
For the profile of the offenders, it is more meaningful to look at the 2016 data because the numbers in 2014 and 2015 were small. The majority of those arrested in 2016 for online drug trading were male and between the ages of 20 to 39 years old. Chinese and Malays made up about 50% and 30% respectively of the persons arrested. We do not have data on their individual or family income.
The increase in the online drug trade is a direct result of the increasing use of the Internet. More people have taken to the Internet for shopping and other transactions. It not surprising that drug buyers and suppliers are also moving online.
Moreover, the Internet offers the cloak of anonymity and therefore a perceived sense of safety. The Internet allows buyers to purchase their drugs without physically meeting with the suppliers. The buyers and suppliers may think that in this way they can better evade detection by law enforcement agencies.
CNB works closely with partners such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and courier companies to detect and take action against the online drug trade. As part of CNB's public education efforts, the agency works with the media to publish trends and dangers of people ordering drugs and drug paraphernalia online. CNB also conducts outreach online to engage persons who may be vulnerable to the online drug trade. CNB will continue to monitor the developments closely and keep up its enforcement and public education efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Composition of SG Enable Management Team","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many persons with disabilities and/or special needs are there on the SG Enable Management Team; and (b) what percentage of the management team do they comprise.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: SG Enable was established in 2013 as an agency to support persons with disability for employment and training, access to schemes as well as provision of information and referral to disability services. SGE is governed by a Board of Directors who provide strategic guidance on the delivery of programmes and services for persons with disabilities as well as ensure proper management of resources of the organisation. Currently, two of the 13 Board members are persons with disabilities. Many of the Board members are also involved in programmes and services that support persons with disabilities. These members provide insights on the needs of persons with disabilities and how SG Enable can play a part in supporting the group.
Apart from its Board members, 6% of SG Enable's workforce comprise persons with disabilities and this is above the national average of 0.55% amongst the resident labour force. In addition to being an inclusive employer, SG Enable believes that this group of staff have enabled the organisation to better understand the clients they serve and to be pro-active in meeting their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Qualified Arborists in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) currently, how many qualified arborists are there in Singapore; (b) of this number, how many are under the employment of NParks; and (c) whether the Ministry regards this number to be sufficient.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There are 500 qualified arborists in Singapore today. Two hundred are employed by NParks to oversee its tree management programme. The pool of 200 NParks arborists is adequate for now. MND and NParks are continually reviewing our resources to ensure that there are sufficient arborists to handle the work requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1698,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170302/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1699,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170302/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat(2).pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1990,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170302/vernacular-Josephine Teo(3).pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":877,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170302/vernacular-Josephine Teo(4).pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":878,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170302/vernacular-Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman(5).pdf","fileName":"Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman(5).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}