1 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for ensuring that a co-tenant of a subsidised HDB rental flat must be aged 35 years old and above; and (b) whether the HDB will consider relaxing such requirements where the co-tenants are young children or adults under the age of 18 years who live with and are financially dependent on a low-income single parent who is the main tenant of the subsidised rental flat.\t
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, our public housing policy is pro-family, with priority allocation of HDB flats accorded to families. The minimum age of 35 is applied to all singles who wish to rent or buy a HDB flat, so as to encourage family formation.
A widowed or divorced parent with children under custody, care and control, can rent a HDB flat as a family nucleus. An unmarried parent is considered a single and will need to pair up with another eligible single to rent under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS).
On a case-by-case basis, HDB may exercise flexibility in allocating a flat to an unmarried parent and a child.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Overstayers in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Arthur Fong –
2 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of overstayers currently in Singapore; (b) what are the annual figures for overstayers caught in the last five years; and (c) what are the procedures, processes or actions taken against these overstayers.\t
Page: 8
Mdm Speaker: Mr Arthur Fong?
\tMr David Ong (Jurong): Question No 2, Mdm Speaker.
\tThe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, the number of overstayers arrested in Singapore has been on a downtrend over the past five years. It dropped by about 49%, from 3,760 in 2009 to 1,930 in 2013.
Overstayers are immigration offenders who have contravened section 15 of the Immigration Act. They are investigated in accordance with the procedures set out in the Criminal Procedure Code. Depending on the circumstances of each case, these offenders could be prosecuted, given a stern warning or fined. They are also liable to be removed from Singapore by order of the Controller of Immigration.
Persons removed under such orders are required to seek permission from the Controller of Immigration should they wish to enter Singapore in the future.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Minister how long is the ban to disallow such overstayers from coming back to Singapore and is there a timeframe after which overstayers can come back. I do have residents whose spouses have been banned and they want to know when their overstayer spouse can be allowed back in Singapore.
\tMr S Iswaran: Madam, I thank the Member for his questions. In general, I think a lot depends on the nature of the offence, how egregious the overstaying offence was, and any other factors that would be relevant in determining whether a person should be re-admitted or be allowed to re-enter Singapore, and if so, after what duration.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, a supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could share the nationality of these overstayers and which nation has the most overstayers in Singapore.
\tMr S Iswaran: Madam, in general, the overstayer pattern in Singapore is not different from our immigration flows. Most of the overstayers come from Asian countries.
\tPage: 9
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Source Countries for Construction Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following questions stood in the name of Mr R Dhinakaran –
3 To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether Filipino and Sri Lankan construction workers are in addition to the supply of workers coming from regular source countries, such as China, India, Thailand and Bangladesh, or whether they will make up for the moderation of workers from these regular source countries; and (b) if the latter, which other countries will such workers come from and how much is the moderation.\t
4 To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of better-skilled Filipino construction workers costing more, whether this signals a deliberate or permanent move by the Government to opt for quality over cost in its foreign manpower policy, particularly in the construction industry where the converse has been the norm.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Question No 3, Madam.
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, last year, BCA appointed Singapore-based companies to set up Overseas Testing Centres (OTCs) in Sri Lanka and the Philippines to enhance resilience in the supply of skilled construction workers. This is an exploratory approach, as we look for more sources of construction workers to meet the continued need for skilled manpower to deliver the public infrastructure projects and to boost construction productivity.
We are, indeed, making a deliberate move to opt for quality over cost. We are achieving this in multiple ways, and not just in exploring more sources of construction workers. With the introduction of a Market-Based Skills Recognition framework for construction and further raising of the R2 \"Basic Skilled\" levy in July 2016, both announced in the Budget Statement, we are encouraging contractors to opt for more skilled and more experienced construction workers.
MOM and MND/BCA will also be consulting the industry to explore having a minimum percentage of R1 \"Higher Skilled\" workers for each construction firm. These higher-skilled R1 workers will naturally command a higher salary than R2 \"Basic Skilled\" workers. But moving towards having a smaller pool of higher skilled and higher paid workers is the right direction for Singapore, rather than towards having a larger pool of more low-skilled but cheaper
\tPage: 10
workers.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Dhinakaran, Question No 4.
\tMr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Question No 4, Mdm Speaker.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: My apologies, Mdm Speaker, in my prior answer, if I could have retrospectively requested your permission to combine the two questions, please.
Mdm Speaker: Okay. The two questions were combined. Mr Dhinakaran.
\tMr R Dhinakaran: Thank you, Madam. I thank the Acting Minister for the explanation. I wish to ask a supplementary question on whether the Ministry was going to moderate the recruitments in the other source countries which MOM had been concentrating on in the past, besides China, India, Thailand and Bangladesh. Are we going to slow down in these source countries?
Another question is: in this Budget, Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the other day that the maximum period of employment has been extended from 18 years to 22 years, or something like that. So, in that direction, we are already extending the employment period of the people who have got long experience in construction. Thus, is there a need to explore other source countries where high cost of labour is prevailing?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, we are not particularly reducing the supply of workers from some of these existing countries. What we are moving towards is to enhance the productivity of the workers, particularly in terms of experience, which is why there was an extension to the employment period from 18 years to 22 years. But in terms of the source countries, we are not moving in the direction that the Member has suggested.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students under Direct School Admission (DSA) Scheme who Drop Out of CCAs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education, for Secondary schools that admit students under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme based on the students' achievements in Co-Curricular Activities (CCA) or sports (a) whether there are clear policies on how schools will handle students who
\tPage: 11
drop out of their designated CCA or sports after admission; and (b) over the past three years, how many students admitted under the DSA scheme do not enrol in or have dropped out of their designated DSA activities within two years of admission.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Minister for Education): Madam, the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme was introduced in 2004 to give selected schools the flexibility and autonomy to recognise a more diverse range of student achievements and talents beyond performance at the national examinations. The intent is to promote holistic education by encouraging a broader definition of merit.
Generally, MOE expects that students admitted through DSA understand the commitment on their part to participate in the CCAs and activities related to the talent for which they were admitted. The intent is also for the DSA school to nurture these students further in their strengths. However, we also recognise that there might be a few cases where the DSA students may need to transfer out of their CCAs due to unforeseen reasons, for example, due to sports injury. In such cases, schools will work with the student on a change in CCA for the educational interests of the student.
Over the past three years and on average, of the students admitted through DSA, about 95% are still in a CCA related to their DSA talent two years after their admission.
\tMr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to seek an additional clarification. Earlier, in one of the replies to my question prior to this, the Ministry had said that the policy for what to do with students will depend on a school-to-school basis. I would like to know if the Ministry has a general consistent policy across the board because we are going to have more and more schools going into the DSA system and more and more students coming through DSA. So, would it be better to have a clearer communication across all schools?
I also understand the explanation that, for example, if there is sports injury, then there would be a good reason for them to move to another activity. But what if the students have no good reasons and they just wish to drop the CCA? What would the Ministry advise schools to do in such circumstances?
\tPage: 12
\tMr Hawazi Daipi: I thank the Member for the questions. The principle of honouring one's commitment applies to both school transfers as well as CCA transfers. What we want to do is to have students commit themselves to the school that they have applied for under DSA. Where students have lost interest, the schools will counsel them. But, essentially, schools will take it case by case. As I have said earlier, 95% of the students remain in the CCA and in the school, undertaking CCAs for which they had been admitted to the schools, after two years. This means the system works. We want the students to honour their commitment to the school, having been admitted based on the specific DSA talent.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Sim Ann): Mdm Speaker, Mr Yee earlier referred to a previous reply given by MOE to one of his questions. I do not know whether he is referring to the previous parliamentary sitting. If he is, perhaps he could give a nod because I do recall he asked a supplementary question, to a main question which I answered, which was with regards to DSA about students who may have been admitted through sports and about whether their PSLE scores have had a certain gap between the cut-off point of that particular school.
Mr Yee raised this issue about CCAs as a supplementary question and I recall the answer that I gave was not that it differs from school to school but that it would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And I believe that the answer that my colleague the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Hawazi Daipi has just given corroborates this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Polygraph Testing in Police Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the police requires victims of alleged crimes in general and alleged rape or sexual assault crimes in particular, to undergo polygraph testing as a matter of standard procedure; and (b) if so, what use is made of the results of such polygraph testing.\t
\tMr S Iswaran (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, polygraph examination is one of the tools used by Police to support investigation of different types of cases, including sex-related offences. Police will evaluate on a case-by-case basis the value of administering polygraph examinations to persons involved in an investigation, to assess the veracity of the persons' statements and to establish new leads. So, it is not a
\tPage: 13
standard procedure.
Generally, this is used when there are conflicting accounts provided by the persons involved, and all other investigative leads have been exhausted.
Polygraph examination is voluntary and written consent is required from the subject. During the investigation, Police may request persons involved in the case, such as accused persons, victims or witnesses, to undergo a polygraph examination. Police will explain the nature and process of polygraph examination to the subject prior to it being administered.
Since its introduction in 1991, Police have used polygraph examinations in a relatively small number of cases. Between 2011 and 2013, Police administered an average of 700 polygraph examinations per year, in about 1%-2% of all crime cases that were reported.
\tMs Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Two points of clarification if I may. I thank the Minister for saying that it is a voluntary procedure. That being the case, would there be any consequences if a victim was actually asked and then not want to do so, even though I understand that it was meant to be voluntary?
Secondly, considering the fact that there has been international scientific scepticism about the effectiveness of the polygraph procedure, are there plans to review the use of such a method, in other words, not to have it at all?
\tMr S Iswaran: Madam, if by \"consequences\" the Member means whether investigations would somehow be ceased or compromised, the answer is no. The Police will conduct the usual slew of investigations and, as I have said, this is really in order for them to be able to use a different technique, if, in fact, all other leads have not yielded results and there is a need to do so in order to establish the facts in a comprehensive way.
As for international practice, in fact, the opinion is varied on this. The practice of polygraph examinations in some countries is even admissible in Court. In Singapore, that is not the practice. But as an investigation technique, it is not uncommon internationally for it to be used to aid investigation officers in their work.
\tPage: 14
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Interests of Residents of Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Alvin Yeo asked the Minister for National Development what measures are available to the Ministry to protect the interests of residents in relation to Town Councils who fail to observe good corporate governance and responsible accounting practices.\t
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mdm Speaker, Town Councils were set up in 1989 by an Act of Parliament to serve two objectives.
Firstly, Town Councils were set up to give authority and responsibility to elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to take charge of their constituents' estate and to allow each Town to develop its own distinctive character under the MPs' leadership.
Secondly, Town Councils, so set up, made MPs accountable to their voters for the running of the estate, as these voters can take the MPs' performance into account when they next go to the polls.
In line with these objectives, the Town Councils Act and the Town Councils Financial Rules give the elected MPs much latitude to run the Town Councils within broad and general rules of governance. For instance, there are only three offences in the Town Councils Act. These relate to the misuse of Town Councils' funds, contravention of the Town Council - Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) rules, and the wilful withholding of information required by an auditor without reasonable cause. These attract fines.
In extremis, should the Town Council fail to maintain the estate properly or if there is a need to remove any imminent danger to residents, the Minister for National Development can intervene in the operations of the Town Council and to appoint someone else to perform the Town Council's duties.
In general, the Town Councils are expected to manage their own affairs and to be accountable to their resident-voters. Town Councils are required, for instance, to keep proper accounts, which must be audited annually. The audited reports must be promptly submitted by the Town Councils to MND for tabling to Parliament. MND will make public its concerns and observations so that residents are informed and can hold the Town Council to account, in line with the objectives for setting up Town Councils. To encourage strong corporate
\tPage: 15
governance and promote greater public accountability, MND regularly publishes the Town Council Management Report so that residents know how their Town Councils are performing.
While the Town Councils Act may have limited enforcement powers, the actions of Town Council officials as individuals are, of course, subject to the laws of the land beyond the Town Councils Act, no different from any other person. Criminal and civil liabilities apply when their actions amount to transgressions of such laws.
The Town Councils Act was drawn up to allow MPs latitude and autonomy so that they can be directly accountable to their constituents for their performance. While residents can hold their Town Councils to account in areas such as cleanliness and maintenance of the estate, it is difficult for residents to exercise effective oversight in other areas of Town Council operations, such as financial management.
Town Councils are entrusted to deliver essential municipal services and also manage large sums of public monies. MND is studying the framework to see what can be done to ensure better protection of public funds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bed Crunch at Restructured Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Arthur Fong –
8 To ask the Minister for Health in view of the bed crunch situation in the restructured hospitals, whether the Ministry could have taken action earlier to avoid the need for tentages to be used to tackle the situation.\t
\tMr David Ong: Question No 8.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mdm Speaker, MOH has highlighted in Healthcare 2020 Masterplan the trend of rising demand for healthcare services as our population grows and ages. We have already put in place plans to add capacity under the Masterplan to meet this long-term demand for healthcare services.
While the new facilities are being developed, the demand for acute healthcare services remains high and the current capacity remains tight. From
Page: 16
time to time, there may be peaks in demand due to various factors, such as an outbreak of diseases like dengue, as well as seasonal factors. Therefore, we have also put in place some buffer capacity to anticipate such surges in demand. Built in June 2013, the tent used for the Admission Transit Area Extension at Changi General Hospital is part of this buffer capacity to respond to unexpected surges in demand. This is a purpose-built facility for housing stable and conscious patients at the Emergency Department with less serious conditions. Changi General Hospital has also put in place appropriate clinical protocols and staffing to ensure that patients are cared for safely in the facility. This facility is closed in times when there is no surge in demand.
In the next few months and years, new capacity will be injected steadily into the healthcare sector across various care settings. By the end of this year, more beds will be added from the various developments, such as the Integrated Block at Changi General Hospital and the new Ng Teng Fong General Hospital. Altogether, from now till 2020, we will add over 11,000 more acute hospital, community hospital and nursing home beds, and these new facilities will serve to meet the demand for healthcare services.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answer to Question No 9 on the Order Paper is reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2014/15. (proc text)]
\tPage: 17
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supplementary Supply (FY 2013) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2014/15. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection from Harassment Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to protect persons against harassment and unlawful stalking and to create offences, and provide civil remedies related thereto or in relation to false statements of fact, and to make consequential amendments to other written laws\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2014/15. (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 [21 February 2014], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the Budget Debate.
Madam, the reactions to this year's Budget was one that I find a little hard to categorise as the reactions I got from the interactions with both residents and the business community were fairly mixed. While there is a lot in this year's Budget, I was surprised at the lack of questions except for those around the Pioneer Generation Package and healthcare cost. Could this be due to the
Page: 18
distractions or the excitement around the Pioneer Generation Package or that the Budget's continued focus on restructuring and inclusive growth was expected?
The underlying themes of Budget 2014 continues the focus which started four years ago, on restructuring of our economy for growth; and building a more inclusive society that is fair and equitable with the aim of levelling up our society and mitigating inequalities.
While the principle of the approach to inclusive growth is premised on a culture of personal responsibility, there is also an emphasis on the need for collective responsibility of the Government and community to build a stronger community and a stronger Singapore. The Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally speech, spoke about the need for the Government to do more but also called out for the community, too, to do more to complement and support the efforts of individuals.
I believe that this subtle but important change is one of the reasons that is drawing different reactions from the ground and segments of the community. Some opinioned that this is a Social Budget as there is a heavy focus on social objectives, including the focus on supporting the elderly and the Pioneer Generation. Others have said that this is an election budget. For businesses, I believe that there was some relief as there were no further measures announced to reduce foreign talent. The focus is, indeed, on driving companies, especially SMEs, to accelerate productivity through the employment of technology, innovation and skilled employees, while recognising the need to restructure and that it takes time and, hence, the extension of several schemes, including PIC.
A clear message of the Budget is the increased focus on driving productivity and growth and that the Government will do more to support those who did embark on improving productivity rather than assisting with cost relief measures.
The increase in CPF contributions by 1% for all workers will, in fact, increase cost for companies. The message is clear that, together with the additional increase in contribution for older workers, it is a call for employers to play their part to help workers with their health and retirement needs. An important point that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman made in his Budget speech was a call to all Singaporeans and not just companies to play our part in this restructuring. He made the point that \"transforming our economy is not just about technology,
Page: 19
and productivity is not ultimately about the dollars and cents of upgrading. It also means changing our social norms\". This includes a workplace culture that values employees' views and contributions, a culture of mastery and pride of the job and driving excellence and, most importantly, a culture of changing our habits and expectations on the services that we receive as consumers. The changes in social norms as, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has called them, will ultimately determine whether the transformation and the desired impact are achieved.
While many may not fully agree, I feel that Budget 2014 did strike a delicate balance between supporting Quality Growth while addressing the challenge of having fewer workers, an ageing population and economic uncertainties to enable a Fair and Equitable Society where we seek for equal opportunities for all starting from an early age.
I will speak on three areas: the economy, business and the social aspects of the Budget.
Staying the course on restructuring does provide certainty to businesses, recognising that this is a multi-year journey and one that is not easy for companies to achieve, given the twin constraints that businesses in Singapore face: (a) the tightening labour market; and (b) high business cost.
The underlying assumption, therefore, in order to support this continued investment in restructuring, is that our economy and the businesses must continue to show strong growth. Contrary to some views that this is a social Budget, I must say that there are a lot of initiatives to support businesses in this Budget and it will require corresponding investments to fund them.
There is cautious optimism in our global economy and that it is recovering from the economic crisis. However, the tightening US monetary policy, political uncertainties and emerging market challenges do pose downside risks. While there are risks, many do not see a sharp slowdown in the global economy and MTI expects Singapore's economy to grow 2% to 4% in 2014.
While we recognise that Singapore will remain high cost given our tight labour market, land constraints and our focus to increase real income of Singaporeans, we therefore have a need to justify this high cost. Hence, the need to raise productivity and to drive innovation. If our companies in Singapore do not increase greater productivity and value, can we continue to
Page: 20
justify our high cost? Will Singapore then become uncompetitive?
Is Singapore able to take advantage of growth opportunities both locally and globally?
To drive growth, talent is necessary. In recognition of the constraints of our talent pool, we must ensure that the talent base is sustained by the Singapore core. While we are taking measures to ensure that there are quality jobs for Singaporeans, we must also ensure that our Singapore talents are skilled, stay relevant and are able to fill these quality jobs.
In terms of the talent base, to continue to drive technology and innovation, there needs to be a concerted effort to attract talent in core skill sets, such as engineering and IT. While we need a diversity of talent, it is observed that enrolment and popularity of IT, Engineering and the Sciences at university and tertiary institutions are declining. For example, university enrolment in Singapore, against an overall 24% increase of students from 2006 to 2012, has dropped to 7% for Engineering Sciences. For Business Administration, enrolment has increased – 27% for the same period.
With advances in technology and globalisation, technology is changing the way we live, we play, we connect, we communicate, and we do our work. Today, over 2.4 billion people use the Internet and a few hundred million are on Facebook. While we focus on innovation in our businesses, we must give equal attention to ensuring that we develop our talent base to be able to participate in this change. How are we preparing our students to participate in the global economy and to succeed?
According to a Forbes article, the top 10 jobs in 2013 did not exist 10 years ago. What it means is that we are preparing our students and a workforce for jobs that do not exist today. In the changing economy, there is a recognition amongst educators that while we continue to develop core knowledge and understanding in our students, students have to learn essential skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration, to be successful.
With technology and the connectivity that exist across many countries, work can be done in different parts of the world for implementation in another country. As Thomas Friedman said in his book \"The World is Flat\", work can be chopped up in one part of the world, one part sent to Boston, another part to Bangalore, another part to Beijing and then implemented, perhaps, in
Page: 21
Singapore. This allows work, especially knowledge or creative work, to be done anywhere and delivered anywhere. It could be disaggregated, delivered, distributed, produced and put back together again. Therefore, the point I am trying to make is that the availability of talent and expertise will make a market attractive, as well as the ability of that talent to communicate, collaborate across markets, to stay relevant will be crucial. Branding and quality of products and services will be a differentiator.
For business, the message of the \"permanent reality of the tight labour market\" could not have been made clearer by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman in his speech. This fact is what many businesses have come to accept, and many have reduced their dependency on lower-skilled foreign labour.
The extension the PIC scheme for another three years till 2018 recognises that restructuring does take time.
However, based on IRAS' Annual Report for the Financial Year 2012/2013, while we have seen an increase of companies – 37% of active companies – benefiting from the PIC scheme, up from the 33% in 2011, 62% of the claims were for purchase or lease of automation machines; 35% of the claims were for the training of employees, while the remaining 3% were for other qualifying activities.
The point is that businesses need to start developing and acquiring IP, design innovation, new ideas and investment in R&D to move up the value chain and differentiate ourselves. We need to look at how to simplify these various schemes and ensuring that SMEs then use these qualifying categories to help them acquire new capabilities to strengthen themselves.
Understanding the long cycle of R&D and the extension of additional tax deduction for R&D for another 10 years is also welcomed. The question then is, will this encourage more companies to invest in R&D and drive innovation?
Feedback from various channels and forums in 2013 did highlight that SMEs did face constraints in scaling their businesses and expanding because of the challenges they had facing the tightening of the labour market.
A worrying trend amongst SMEs polled in the annual SME survey conducted by DP Singapore released late last year, found that fewer of them were doing businesses outside of Singapore – 46% have reliance on work
Page: 22
outside of Singapore compared to 56% the year before.
This is worrying because what it means is that while they are dealing with the challenges and the restructuring changes in our economy, they are not taking advantage of the opportunities.
With rising costs, and for companies to stay competitive, restructuring must be undertaken, and businesses must grow to sustain the longer-term growth.
The creation of new industrial spaces that cluster companies within the same industry, I believe will benefit SMEs with lower cost through the aggregation of demand for common shared services, allowing consolidation of operations and pooling of resources. The example of the Seletar Aviation Hub shows how SMEs can lower their capital investments as they benefit from shared facilities. The Aviation Hub is an aerospace park that has infrastructure dedicated to the sector, which includes component manufacturing and MRO facility, ready-built factory units, large floor space, column-free production areas with adequate ceiling and height. These allow SMEs to therefore come out with less upfront investment cost.
The introduction of the PIC+ scheme for SMEs is a big tax change in the Budget and sends a signal that the Government will provide additional support to SMEs who want and can make substantial investments to restructure their businesses.
This is targeted at SMEs with turnover of $100 million and above and what this allows qualifying SMEs is an expenditure cap of $600,000 for each qualifying category instead of the current $400,000 cap for PIC.
The introduction of the ICT for Productivity and Growth (IPG) Programme costing the Government over $500 million recognises the important lever that technology can provide to SMEs to be more productive and competitive. The IPG consists of three schemes of subsidising the cost of scaling the number of SMEs adopting proven sector solutions at about 70% of that cost. It also encourages companies to pilot emerging solutions by supporting 80% of the qualifying costs, and subsidising businesses. A very interesting aspect of this was also the recognition that high-speed connection was necessary and the subsidies of fibre broadband to enable companies to take advantage of cloud computing and data analytics solutions – which is a big plus for SMEs to be able
Page: 23
to benefit from.
I must say that the IPG incentives are generous and definitely welcomed by both businesses and the ICT sector. And here, I must declare my interest in the sector. They are, however, not sufficient. SMEs will need access to talent and support to understand and test the solutions, to implement and manage the change and to leverage the technologies to benefit these businesses. There is a lot change of management required, and so, I think the capacity and the capability that is built to support that will be an equally important investment that has to be made.
There is a clear message in the Budget that the focus is on raising the game on the restructuring of companies to focus on quality growth and skills. The various schemes in the five thrusts encourage innovation, collaboration and leverage in the sector for productivity, leverage on technology for effectiveness and competitiveness, supporting expansion and internationalisation of companies for growth. For construction, the message again is clear. It is on skilled workers and retention of skilled workers and to reduce the reliance on low skilled workers.
As mentioned, the increase in employers' CPF contributions will have an impact on business costs and profitability of firms. Although the employers will receive a Temporary Employment Credit to offset 0.5% of the increase of wages, there are concerns that this might discourage the hiring of older workers. While we must recognise that this does increase business cost, especially for smaller companies, it is the right thing to do for employees as it will enable them to save better for their healthcare and retirement needs. This will indirectly benefit employers in the longer term. Employers of older workers will also get help through a one-year increase in the Special Employment Credit Scheme to make the transition easier.
Let me now touch on the other major pillar of the Budget, which is targeted at building a Fair and Equitable Society. As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has said in his Budget speech, this Budget takes forward the major strategies to build a fair and equitable society that Prime Minister spoke about at the National Day Rally.
Budget 2014 continues to build on the effort to promote social mobility and accessibility from an early age for all, including children with special needs. There are significant steps taken to enhance healthcare affordability and retirement adequacy for Singaporeans, which is the concern of many.
Page: 24
Recognising the challenges with increasing cost of living, it is important to note that there are deliberate efforts in this Budget to enhance the schemes to benefit more in the middle-income households by strengthening opportunities for students both at preschool and at the institutions of higher learning (IHLs), and additional support for households and handicapped relief.
Healthcare affordability is a concern for all Singaporeans. So, while we continue to enhance healthcare affordability and sustainability with the various schemes announced in this year's Budget, I must ask that we take a more holistic view to healthcare to promoting healthy living because, with the increased focus on just acute care and providing capacity there, that is not going to be enough. We need to take an integrated approach to quality and availability of healthcare at all levels to strengthen the healthcare system for having effective networks of support and quality from home base, primary, step-down, intermediate, long-term care to drive the right healthcare outcomes and to manage escalating healthcare cost. I will not go into the specifics of the initiatives as I believe other Members in this House will do so.
It will be remiss of me not to mention the Pioneer Generation Package which is the highlight of this year's Budget and has been the subject of much discussion in many forums, coffee shops, homes, offices, etc. This is a special Budget, and it is a way for honouring this unique generation of Singaporeans who built up this country and enabled many like you and I, to benefit from the Singapore that we know of today. I am glad that the Pioneer Generation Package does not have an income criterion and all the cohort will qualify for the same benefits as this is a recognition for their contributions. That the scheme is also fully provided for in this Budget is the prudent and right thing to do to ensure that we assure the Pioneers of the benefits that they will get, and that it does not burden subsequent generations. This will ensure that future budgets can focus on the needs and the time for all Singaporeans.
While many welcome the Pioneer Generation Package, there are concerns on whether the benefits will reach all those in this generation who need it. Questions were raised on how the pioneers will be notified, what will be done to ensure they understand what they will get depending on which age group they fall into. For the CHAS benefits, as all pioneers will qualify for enhanced CHAS, will they be automatically notified so that there will be no need for application which is the current process that CHAS requires today. We will need to ensure that there are also appropriate outreach programmes to connect with pioneers to explain the benefits that they will receive in this package.
Page: 25
I am not sure if it was an intended effect of the Pioneer Generation Package or the increased parent relief and handicapped parent relief for those taking care of their parents and grandparents who are staying with them, whether it was about strengthening of family relationships and filial piety. But I think, to some extent, the benefits provided to the pioneers and the enhancements to income tax relief give greater encouragement and recognition to individuals supporting their parents and grandparents and thus provide peace of mind and relief to family members who are taking care of them. This change allows the sharing of parents' relief. While not a large one, it does send a signal that it recognises that the care for parents is a shared responsibility amongst family members.
Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget is an inclusive Budget on all counts.
On the social front, the initiatives on social mobility are targeted early to ensure that they create and level up opportunities for all and strengthen family ties. While not able to guarantee equal outcomes, the focus is to ensure that all Singaporeans are given opportunities to improve their lives.
On the business front, the continued effort on restructuring is further sharpened, founded on growth, with a focus on supporting value creation and skills to ensure sustainability.
On the economic front, we recognise that an economy that continues to grow is fundamental to ensuring an inclusive society, providing quality job opportunities. An area that I feel requires further emphasis is building the skills for the future.
While Budget 2014 continues the emphasis on restructuring for the future, at the same time, it is about investing in the kind of society we want for Singapore. Our people are at the centre of this Budget. What will determine success is how we land these initiatives to benefit those they are intended for. Each of us, too, has our part to play in this restructuring —
Mdm Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan, please wind up your speech.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Okay. Government, Community, Employers and Consumers of Services. This change in social norms, as the Deputy Prime Minister called it, will, ultimately, determine whether transformation will succeed. Madam, I support the Budget.
Page: 26
Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. When I sat listening to the National Day Rally Speech last year, I was very comforted when Prime Minister Lee singled out the Pioneer Generation as a group that we need to give priority to. The Prime Minister had said, and I think it is worth repeating here:
\"One group which we need to take special care of is our Pioneer Generation. They are special. They are the ones who worked hard to build today's Singapore. They made this place. They enabled us today to enjoy these facilities. They earned less than us. They had fewer safety nets when they were working. They brought up this generation and they paved the way for us to live a better life than themselves. That was their goal. They achieved it and I think we should know and that we should be grateful to them. Now mostly they are retired, at least in their late 60s, many older. And we must take special care of this special Pioneer Generation in their golden years.\"
This year's Budget has managed to do this. It is an inclusive, thoughtful and caring Budget – one that not only honours the Pioneer Generation but also extends a helping hand to the young, workers and companies to help create a fair and equitable society with quality growth. What impresses me most is the implementation of the Pioneer Generation Package. It honours and thanks the Pioneer Generation whose grit and determination helped build today's flourishing Singapore. It is timely that it also addresses the concerns and needs of this very special group of seniors, and I am especially glad that due consideration had been given to meet their medical needs.
The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health had released a report in August last year, calling on the Government to make healthcare affordable to all Singaporeans, especially the elderly. The key recommendations by the GPC were:
(a) Enhancing the 3M framework by strengthening MediShield coverage, ensuring premium affordability and liberalising Medisave usage;
(b) Review and rationalise existing medical assistance scheme and subsidy framework;
Page: 27
(c) Managing rising healthcare costs through expanding the standard drug list; and
(d) The right siting of care in the continuum of care.
I am extremely heartened that many of the recommendations in the GPC report have been taken up in this year's Budget. In particular, I wish to applaud the additional subsidies for Specialist Outpatient Clinics, polyclinics, extension of CHAS benefits to the Pioneer Generation, disability cash assistance, Medisave top-ups and revamping MediShield to the more inclusive MediShield Life plan for all Singaporeans. I am also glad that CPF contribution rates for older workers have been raised. These will go a long way to ensuring that healthcare remains affordable for the elderly. The ring-fencing of the $8 billion to fund the Pioneer Generation Package is also very reassuring as it provides peace of mind to the estimated 450,000 beneficiaries that this package will continue, regardless of the economic climate in Singapore, for the rest of their lives.
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman is absolutely right to point out that healthcare cost will be the key concern of many Singaporeans, both young and old. I am glad that the Government has heeded the Health GPC's call to ensure healthcare affordability, through the various provisions in this year's Budget.
In line with its general principle of seeing healthcare within the spectrum of continuum of care, the GPC has recommended that MediShield coverage be enhanced and extended to cover social and community care costs. This is ever more pertinent with the ageing population and that more and more of the population would need to utilise such care options in future. The GPC has also called for the MediShield age limit to be removed and that all Singaporeans be included in this national healthcare plan. The co-payments and deductibles for basic plans, though essential, should be lowered to make it more affordable for Singaporeans. I support the great work of the MediShield Life Review Committee and I hope that the Review Committee will take these suggestions into consideration in their final recommendations for the MediShield Life plan.
However, many Singaporeans, especially those from the lower- and middle-income families, remain apprehensive about the rising healthcare costs. Although MediShield Life will provide enhanced coverage for all Singaporeans, including those with pre-existing illnesses, many are worried about the affordability of the premium. While the Government has promised to offset the anticipated premium increase for all Singaporeans for the next few years, I hope
Page: 28
the Government can do more to help the needy by providing long-term financial assistance to help keep these vulnerable groups covered under MediShield Life. As a general principle, the GPC has recommended that the Government step in to provide the necessary assistance to the elderly and needy Singaporeans who genuinely encounter financial hardship in maintaining their MediShield Life coverage.
A review of the subsidy framework was also one of the recommendations by the GPC for Health. Subsidies for the low- and middle-income at Specialist Outpatient Clinics will rise from 50% to 60% and 70% respectively, while those from the Pioneer Generation can receive subsidy as high as 85%. Those between the ages of 55 and 64 this year will also receive Medisave top-ups of $100-$200 over the next five years. These will make healthcare within the reach of all and ensure that they will get the care they need.
In addition, I would like to urge the Government to liberalise the use of Medisave, so that the out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare can be minimised. Many Singaporeans have lamented the fact that they may have sufficient money in the Medisave but the rules do not allow its use on legitimate medical expenses beyond what the current allowable ceiling is.
One case in point is the Medisave withdrawal limit for the Chronic Diseases Management Programme (CDMP). Only patients suffering from the list of pre-approved chronic diseases are allowed to use Medisave to pay for their medical expenses. What about many other patients who may be suffering from other chronic diseases that require long-term treatment? What about expenses on health screening and essential medical paraphernalia, such as blood pressure and blood sugar monitoring machines, or even diapers for the invalid? The Government should also consider the expansion of the standard drug list and institute regular surveys on medical costs and make public such information, which I had previously called for. These additional measures will go a long way towards ensuring that healthcare remains affordable for all Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, I am also glad to see that CPF rates will be raised for all workers, especially older workers. The additional 1% increase to Medisave contribution will no doubt help citizens with healthcare costs. However, the elephant in the room has to do with affordability. For the lower-income groups, for instance, those who earn less than $1,500 per month, is that 1% increase sufficient? These groups are more vulnerable to the inflationary impact of healthcare costs. Similarly, we cannot expect all older persons to work.
Page: 29
For instance, as of June 2013, in the 50-55 age group, 94% of male residents and only 66.5% of female residents participate in the labour force. This number decreases as we look at older age groups. Raising CPF contribution rates will ensure those in the workforce get the help they need, but let us remember those who do not work, many not by choice. Many older women stay home to take care of their children and families and contribute to Singapore in their own ways. Can the Government do more to care for their healthcare needs, instead of overburdening their families?
This year's Budget has also seen the introduction of the new Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme, which will give out $1,200 a year to our pioneers with moderate to severe disabilities. While it is not a huge sum and might not be adequate for those who require long-term medical and social care, the assistance scheme is a good gesture. This sum of money will help caregivers as they seek to care for their loved ones. Yet, let us remember that there are other caregivers who also give up their careers and make sacrifices to their lives to care for their loved ones. These caregivers care for their family members with disabilities, who may not make up the Pioneer age group. Caregiving is never easy and the stress on caregivers, financially and emotionally, can be enormous. In last year's Budget debate, I had called for more help for these caregivers, and I would like to raise this again. Can we not consider a similar form of caregiver allowance, in the form of cash payouts or even Medisave or CPF top-ups to help them, just like in many other countries?
It is an undeniable fact that the expenses for people with disabilities and their families are generally higher. Early therapy and educational support for children with special needs require a lot of resources and can be costly, as are the dedicated transport services for the handicapped. The new education and transport subsidies to help the disabled from a young age are indeed welcome, and I hope the Government will continue to monitor this space closely and to provide the necessary assistance to mitigate the rising cost of living over time.
In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister also pointed out that there is an urgent need to ensure that the capacity of the healthcare system is expanded so that our infrastructure will meet our current and future needs. Recent news articles have also highlighted once again the bed crunch that many of our hospitals are facing. I agree wholeheartedly that there is an urgent need to also reduce the over-concentration of patient load in acute settings. In the face of higher demand for healthcare, we also need to spread the burden and ensure that our primary care sector takes up the challenge. The same applies for community care settings. In an ideal healthcare ecosystem, all sectors should be working together to coordinate care for the community and to ensure the
Page: 30
right siting of care. In the United Kingdom, the Department of Health has made coordinated health and social care a key aim, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in different settings. We can do more to relieve the burden on our acute setting, if our primary, acute and community care settings are better integrated, in terms of subsidises, seamless referrals, streamlining care pathways and patient record management.
Mdm Speaker, it is good that the Government has prepared the Pioneer Generation Package to help those who have contributed to Singapore in their youth. Much, in fact all, of this assistance is in the area of healthcare but let us remember that it is not only in the area of healthcare that we need to turn our attention to. At the United Nations level, the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, called for:
\"A society for all ages encompasses the goal of providing older persons with the opportunity to continue contributing to the society. To work towards this goal, it is necessary to remove whatever excludes or discriminates against them.\"
While the Government has worked hard to remove the monetary obstacles in healthcare affordability, we need to ensure that in other areas, the elderly can still participate meaningfully in society. This includes the areas of employment and access to knowledge, especially infocomm technology. We can and should do more to ensure that older persons, including the Pioneer Generation, continue to have the opportunities to lead their lives they want to, to work in the jobs they want to, and to access the information they need. The non-monetary aspects of growing old must not be neglected and the Government can do more to help them. Can we, for instance, look at abolishing the retirement age and continue to pay older workers based on their performance and contribution?
Mdm Speaker, I would like to highlight a potential conflict between the young and the old and draw valuable lessons from the South Korean experience.
Let us turn our attention to MRT priority seats at this moment. I am sure many of us here will know that priority seating on our trains is a noted point of concern. While we hear of many sleepers in these seats, I am still heartened that a recent survey by TODAY newspaper showed that most Singaporeans would give up their seats for those who need them, especially the elderly. However, the situation in South Korea is slightly different. Like us, South Korea
Page: 31
is one of the world's most rapidly ageing countries and is expected to become an \"aged society\" in the next four years. South Korea also has the third lowest birth rate in the world. I am sure we can see many similarities between Singapore and South Korea. Yet, in South Korea, as a recent The New York Times article by Kim Young-Ha points out, there is an inherent tension between the young and the old, in the form of his observations about priority seating in the Korean subway, and I quote him here:
\"There was a time when young people were happy to give up their seats for the elderly. And the elderly, fitting to tradition, have always assumed that they had a right to a seat occupied by a younger person. But young people today are simply less deferential to their elders… For now, South Korea's intergenerational conflict seems limited to the underground. But without a meaningful dialogue on how to help both our struggling elderly and disaffected young people, the tension will find a way of rising to the surface.\"
The problem, as Kim explains, is that younger South Koreans have come of age in a time of relative affluence and freedom, and like many younger people in East Asia, have gradually become more independent-minded than their elders and less attached to the traditional Confucian values that have been the basis of Korean society for centuries. The net result is a society divided among values and age lines, and the dispute over who gets to sit on priority seats is an exemplification of the underlying tension.
Thus, while we seek to ensure that the older generation is well taken care of, we must ensure that our younger citizens understand the rationale behind these measures to help the elderly and accept them. The last thing we want to have is a divide between older Singaporeans who enjoy certain benefits and the younger Singaporeans who do not. We must ensure that there will be no tension between our citizens because of age.
Mdm Speaker, I want to end off my speech like I always have – by relating a children's story. This one is called \"Now One Foot, Now the Other\" by Tomie dePaola, an American writer and illustrator who has created more than 200 children's books and has received the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award for his lifetime contribution to American children's literature in 2011. This story is one that touches my heart every time I read it.
There are two main characters in the story – Bob the Grandfather and Bobby the Grandson. Allow me to quickly share the main gist of the story here.
Page: 32
Bobby's dearest person in the world is his grandpa, Bob. Bob teaches Bobby how to walk, stack wooden blocks and tells him stories. Bobby's favourite, as he grows, is the story about learning to walk with Bob, first one foot, then the other.
Then, Bob suffers a stroke. Bobby comes home one day, and his parents tell him that Bob is in the hospital, would not be back for a long time and no, sorry, Bobby is not allowed to visit him. Bobby is, of course, devastated. Months of sadness and loneliness pass for Bobby and finally, Grandpa Bob gets well enough to return home. What a bittersweet homecoming it is, though. Bob is confined to a bed or chair; he cannot walk nor talk and little Bobby is afraid and sad. Bobby's first attempt to talk to Bob is frightening and he ends up running from the room to tell his mom that Bob sounded like a monster.
When Bobby returns to Bob a few minutes later, there are tears on Bob's face. It is a moment of reckoning for Bobby, because he finds that he can communicate with Bob and believes that Bob is responding to him, even if it is ever so very slightly. The wooden blocks and stories slowly come back out, only this time, it is Bobby who is in the lead. Eventually, Bob learns to walk again, just a little, with young Bobby teaching the subject he has known so well through his cherished stories, first one foot, now the other.
Mdm Speaker, our older generation have taught us to walk. They have cared for us, building us a nation of opportunities and wealth. Now in their times of need, it is our turn. Like the story, our younger generation can and should support our own Bobs, to help them to walk if they so desire, to talk, to empathise and to support them. The Pioneer Generation Package is a right step in this direction. With that I support the Budget.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mdm Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to join this debate.
In 2006, shortly after I joined MOH, I was asked in an interview what I thought people wanted from healthcare. I said that people wanted to \"live long, live well and have peace of mind\". I said that in the context of increasing longevity of our population. It is not a bad thing to have more years to live, provided those are years with quality and not years plagued with anxiety and debilitation. As for peace of mind, it is not only the individual's physical well-
Page: 33
being but also whether he is confident that he has adequate provision for his healthcare expenditure and the impact of healthcare cost on his own as well as his family's finances that count.
How do we go about achieving that goal? In the Labour Movement, we have developed what is called the \"4P\" approach which I will use to describe my thinking. The \"4P\"s are: Protection, Progression, Placement and Privileges.
As applied to the subject at hand, I believe there should be three key pieces to work on. First, increase lifetime earnings through increasing the effective number of years a person is able to work and the wages he can sustainably earn in the course of his working life. And if we think about it, then that offers greater Protection and gives Progression.
Second, provide better assurances of the adequacy of retirement resources to meet essential healthcare and living expenses while continuing to actively monitor and manage those rising costs that affect seniors most. That is the way to honour the seniors and grant them that Privilege.
Third, improve the opportunities and programmes for strengthening the physical, social and emotional dimensions of people's lives, especially as they age and then enter retirement. This will help secure their Place in society. I will elaborate on the third area during the COS for MOH under the topic of \"Active Ageing\", and so I will not be touching on this today.
Mdm Speaker, through a variety of efforts in these three areas, we pursue the ideal of Valuing every older employee at work and every Senior in society. In a similar vein, my fellow Labour Members will elaborate in their Budget debate speeches on how different segments of the workforce could and should be valued, protected and progressed.
It was against this backdrop of wanting to increase lifetime earnings that I advocated for the early implementation of legislated re-employment beyond the statutory retirement age of 62. I am happy that the tripartite partners agreed on this and Parliament passed the re-employment law in January 2011 to mandate re-employment from 62 to 65 years old. That law took effect from January 2012. At its most basic, this has enabled entire cohorts of seniors to continue to earn income for at least three more years.
The employment rate of workers in the 55 to 64 age bracket and even in the 65 to 69 age bracket have further improved since 2012, both because of a tight
Page: 34
labour market and also because older workers have proven their worth at work. With life expectancy continuing to rise, I firmly believe that the re-employment age ceiling need not and cannot stagnate at 65.
This was why I pushed last year for the re-employment age ceiling to be further raised in the next step from 65 to 67 once tripartite efforts have been focused on consolidating the strengths of the legislated re-employment experience and come to terms with the measures that need to be put in place to enable that movement from 65 to 67. If I succeed in this, older workers will have the opportunity to earn income for yet another two more years at least. I am glad that the tripartite partners have now agreed to work on this issue, and I would continue to advocate for it to bear fruit as soon as possible.
As the aim is to enhance earned income sustainably, this is why besides enabling longer work lives, the Labour Movement has also pushed hard for the adoption of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) across all sectors and workforce segments, and that includes tapping the full potential of the older workforce, as well as strengthening the CPF savings of older workers for Medisave and retirement through increased employer contributions. I am grateful for the tripartite support for these positions, and, in particular, want to thank the Government for the additional CPF contributions that it mandated in this year's Budget for all workers in Medisave and, especially for older workers, in their Retirement or Special accounts.
Another aspect to strengthen the Protection of older workers is through helping to upkeep their health and to make work more age-friendly. Programmes like WorkPro can offer incentives toward such outcomes. At the same time, workplace health initiatives are also very important. For example, there are occupations that expose their workers to prolonged standing or sitting, or to repeated joint use. Over a long period, it hurts the health of workers as they age and will harm their employability. We must drill down and zoom into initiatives that can help large groups of them maintain a level of health that will enable them and allow them to carry on contributing. I have, therefore, pushed for workplace health to go beyond generalities to also focus on occupations and industries with a concentration of older workers, to protect them against premature loss of employability and employment.
I now move on to the second critical piece of the jigsaw, which is on how to provide better assurances of the adequacy of retirement resources to meet the essential healthcare and living expenses while continuing to actively
Page: 35
monitor and manage those rising costs that affect seniors most.
Survey after survey of seniors reveal the same thing: that seniors are most worried about healthcare cost. This stems from two main reasons, I believe. First, many from the current generation of seniors did not have the chance to earn high wages in their younger days. It was a different economy and skills base was also different then. Second, they know that the bulk of lifetime healthcare cost will be incurred around the final decade of life. This, together with seeing the reality of healthcare cost rises over the years, leads to anxiety over the adequacy of personal resources to cope and the potential financial burden this could then become for their next generation.
While the 3M system of Medisave, MediShield and MediFund has served Singaporeans well over the decades, seniors remained concerned. In this regard, the Pioneer Generation Package announced in this Budget takes this bull by the horns and I applaud it.
The Pioneer Generation package builds on the Government's longstanding commitment to Singaporeans that no citizen will be denied necessary medical treatment on account of poverty. Through its iron-clad guarantees of super-enhanced Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) subsidies, lifelong annual Medisave top-ups and lifelong, inclusive and affordable MediShield Life coverage, the Government has addressed the financial concerns of Singaporeans who are 65 years or older this year about healthcare affordability. Indirectly, this also alleviates the fears of their family members and helps the whole family conserve money for other uses.
The financial peace of mind that the Pioneer Generation package accords is not only in the promised subsidies, but also in the upfront $8 billion ring-fenced commitment by Government. This places Singapore in a special class of countries which are not only willing to commit decisively and very substantially on a long-term basis, but actually has the resources to ensure that the promises are real and fully backed. For this, we must thank decades of prudent stewardship of national resources that made this possible.
Going forward, I see two additional areas that we should pay attention to. The first is to accord the post-Pioneer Generation and employers with greater clarity over long-term CPF savings rates. NTUC has urged tripartite partners to come together to further discuss the updating of the 2003 set of long-term CPF rates. This is necessary as the current rates have been surpassed in many instances. As this subject has been widely covered in the media very recently, I
Page: 36
will not elaborate further on it today.
The second area is that of helping seniors in areas beyond healthcare expenditure. This year's Budget already contains examples in this area. For example, the new discounted fare card for seniors will help older workers who have to travel frequently to lower their transport expenditure. The special one-off Senior Bonus GST Voucher in this year's Budget doubled the amount that older, lower- and middle-income seniors will receive compared to the normal GST voucher and will help them in coping with the cost of living. All these additional help and support rendered to seniors are much appreciated. At the same time, I note that the needs that these measures help address are also not one-off occurrences but are part and parcel of living in Singapore.
In terms of understanding needs, I find the Chinese saying \"衣食住行医教\" very useful. In other words, what you wear, what you use, what you eat, your shelter, transport, medical and education – these are big categories of expenditure that people think about. I find this categorisation very useful. I suggest that the Government make a list of the various senior-centric cash and cash-equivalent grants and subsidies it is giving. Perhaps, divide them into healthcare-related and non-healthcare related. Healthcare to seniors is a big worry because of the fear of very big bills. But that does not happen all the time. In comparison, the other categories tend to incur expenditures that are more recurrent and related to cost of living generally.
For the recurrent category, I suggest that the Government consider which of the grants and subsidies can be made permanent and/or enhanced. For example:
Can the Government consider buying the public transport fare cards for seniors above a certain age to be defined who apply for them, and in this way, accord them the privilege and help them save money for other uses?
Can the Government think of a way to overcome the worry of seniors that they outlive the remaining lease under the Lease Buyback Scheme so that seniors across more flat types can get cash from their housing investment, and at the same time know that they can age in place with peace of mind?
For workers on Workfare Income Supplement support who are no longer offered employment past the prevailing re-employment age ceiling, and not because they do not want to work, can the Government consider a different kind of basic support to help them cope with the cost of living, which will go on,
Page: 37
whether or not they have that re-employment offered to them?
Can the Government consider making permanent the GST Senior Bonus Voucher, remove the complexity of different Annual Property Value tiers of disbursement and review the amount and disbursement intervals periodically so as to regularly support all seniors, and enable them all to cope better? These are examples that come to mind. Obviously, they are not exhaustive. I hope to just throw this into the pool in order to generate more ideas all round and we can build a better system that way to honour, care for, protect and progress our seniors.
Mdm Speaker, I continue to firmly believe in the importance of self-help and family support, even as I say that we should improve what the Budget can do to help our seniors. Because I firmly also believe that we must ensure continued fiscal prudence and sustainability. At the same time, l believe that there are still various ways to tweak and enhance existing schemes and programmes, as well as to consider new ones to further strengthen the confidence and resilience of our senior population.
I urge the Government to examine this area more closely and see how such support can be further developed to take into account the recurrent nature of certain significant costs faced by our seniors. That would then reinforce our social safety net for our seniors and add to ongoing efforts to partner our seniors to \"live well and with greater peace of mind\". Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, like any democracy around the world, it is to be expected of Members of Parliament during Budget time to always push the envelope and to urge the Government to do more. I am sure in the next few days, there will be no shortage of passionate arguments, asking the Government to do more, to give more, to reverse unpleasant policies, to institute friendlier policies. So, in a way, asking the Government to do more is the easier part. To determine a policy construct and the resources to do the job is a more difficult task and best left to the Government.
Notwithstanding what I have just said, I will also be pushing for more in this Budget and during the COS because even given a best-in-class Budget, such as this one, we can always find areas to improve, to do more and, if not
Page: 38
now, hopefully, in time to come.
Let me start by saying what I am happy with about Budget 2014, and I intend focus on the \"non-goodies\" part of the Budget.
Firstly, on Government fiscal and economic management. Budget 2014 projected a small overall deficit of S$1.2 billion or 0.3% of GDP despite increased social spending and setting aside S$8 billion for the big-ticket item – the Pioneer Generation Package. Thanks to the robust and broad-base tax revenue as well as the increasingly significant investment returns from the reserves, we are able to fund the various spending increases on our social agenda as well as further invest in capacity building for future growth.
This enviable position does not come by chance. We do not have oil or minerals underneath us and we do not even have our own economic hinterland. So, every revenue dollar, whether it is from taxes or from reserves, had to be painstakingly built up over the years. We have to thank our earlier generations for instilling the financial discipline and the virtue of thriftiness. If our earlier generations had chosen to spend more and save less, we would have been faced with a very different situation today.
Over the years, the Government has often been criticised for being too prudent or too conservative. Indeed, it is always so tempting to spend more and to tax less. But we all know that there really is no free lunch in this harsh real world. Every success that Singapore achieved in the past five decades was hard earned. And there is no shortcut to prudent fiscal management. It took a lot of effort, determination and political will to institutionalise and embed these values within our system. And we should not allow it to weaken or slip in the years to come. So, every Member in this House can play our part to further entrench these values and discipline so that Singapore can continue to progress and thrive on a sound fiscal footing with no financial burden to the future generations.
The second thing I like about Budget 2014 is the greater clarity in the direction ahead. The message is clear. We need to transform our economy and we want to build a fair and equitable society. A more intellectual way to put this is to say that we want to build both economic capital and social capital.
From this Budget, it became very apparent that economic capital and social capital are interlinked and they do feed into each other. Without economic progress, we would not be able to generate resources to execute and spend on
Page: 39
our social programme; which is likely to increase steeply in the years to come. Without social harmony and social mobility, communities and systems will fall apart and there would be no economic progress to talk about. Both are necessary and interdependent. And this is well manifested in this year's Budget.
I am heartened that the Government and our fellow citizens see it necessary to assist those in need within our society. It shows that we are a compassionate nation. And more importantly, we are also in a good position to offer an adequate social safety net that is sustainable. But make no mistake about it. Our social spending and other development expenditure are just going to keep growing in the years to come.
Budget 2014 projected total expenditure to grow at 8.3%, following an increase of 6.8% in FY 2013, the year before. On the other hand, operating revenue for 2014 is projected to grow at a lower 4.1% compared to also a lower 2.4% in FY 2013.
Though we still have a primary surplus, it is not difficult to see that our total expenditures are clearly growing at a faster rate than our total operating revenue. In business budgeting, this is what we call a negative draw, meaning the growth in expenditure surpasses the growth in revenue. If left unchecked, where expenditure continues to grow at a much faster rate than revenue, we could end up with ballooning Budget deficits in the years to come.
To balance the budget, governments have to either cut spending or raise taxes, or do both. And we have seen many of such austerity budgets happening in Europe in the last few years to deal with their huge deficit and debt crisis. In Singapore, our approach has been to first grow the economy so that we have additional revenue pools to help pay for the increased social spending without the need to raise taxes.
Currently, the largest contributor to our tax coffers is the corporate income tax. In FY2013, it accounted for 22% or S$12.55 billion of total operating revenue. The other major taxes are the personal income tax and GST. If the economy shrinks or throttles at a flattish trajectory, we may not have enough additional revenue to fund the higher spending.
Hence, growing the economy the quality way is still the best course of action for now.
Page: 40
But we cannot rule out having to raise taxes to balance the Budget one day; for example, in situations where the economy is not growing enough or the expenditure has run way ahead of us. In that situation and, if that is necessary, I hope we can apply the fair and equitable principle that is being espoused in this Budget; which is let those in the society who have done well shoulder more of the tax increases. If we have to raise taxes, we should minimise the broad-base tax impact on the low-and middle-income groups. Nevertheless, our premise must be to continue growing the economy, spend prudently and raise income, which is the third aspect of what I like about this Budget.
Four years ago, the Government accepted the recommendations of the ESC and embarked on this journey to restructure the economy, to improve productivity and to reduce dependence on foreign labour. The ESC then highlighted the unsustainable demand for foreign labour and that we are bordering the limits as to how much more our society can absorb.
Four years on, the Government is pressing ahead with the labour tightening. And in this Budget, we saw the PIC scheme being extended for another three years to help businesses, and more new measures are added to further enhance productivity and raise wages.
Some of the recent indicators are, indeed, very encouraging. The PIC scheme is gaining traction on the ground, as the Finance Minister has mentioned in his speech as well.
These days, when I engage businesspeople on the ground, acronyms, such PIC, ICV, WCS, have become their natural vocabulary and, interestingly, when I spoke to one of them, he even used \"PIC\" in verb form, meaning \"I just PICed this year\". It may be an indication that businesses are in action mode now to improve productivity and using all those schemes.
And many businesses I spoke to also seem to have accepted the reality that the tight labour market is here to stay and there is no point lamenting or whining about it further. Ironically, scenes of what had happened in Little India on 8 December last year have also driven home the point among the businesses that, indeed, there is a physical and social limit as to how many foreign workers we can accommodate on this tiny little island. My sense is that the mindsets of businesses have shifted or changed, and they are focusing more on improving productivity, and that is the good news.
Page: 41
Our economy continues to show resilient growth at 4.1% despite the labour market squeeze and the wage increases. Unemployment remains low at 2.9%. But what is more encouraging is that the real wages of median Singaporean workers have increased by 5% in 2013. And for the lower-income group, we have also seen real wages gone up by around 7%.
Though productivity remains flat in the last four years, wage increases can be seen as an early indicator. After all, the ultimate goal why we are restructuring our economy and enhancing productivity is to seek better wages and better jobs for the low to middle income.
Also, the Gini coefficient has improved to its lowest level at 0.412 in more than 10 years if Government transfers are included. These are all encouraging social indicators that we want to further improve upon and build upon. I support the Government's continued efforts to restructure the economy and to continue managing the inflow of foreign labour. It is crucial that we succeed in transforming the economy and embark on this new phase of economic development.
Well, no Budget debate speech is complete without some suggestions for improvements. But let me just run through some of the things.
As a country, we have done very well. We have a viable economy with distinct competitive advantages. Our reserves give us further economic security. Global companies still see Singapore as a premium location to do business and we continue to be a vibrant financial centre.
We have among the best armed forces in the region and, despite our natural limitations, amazingly, we are on the road to self-sufficiency in water and greater resilience in energy.
In the social arena, no country in the world can claim to have a higher home ownership rate than us at 90%, thanks to HDB and CPF savings. In education, the latest PISA ranking confirmed that we are on the right track in levelling up the academically weaker students and in giving them a strong foundation.
Racial and religious harmony remains our most precious asset and something that we can all be very proud of.
So, since Independence, Singapore has done well. The Government has done the big things right and well. As a country, we have every reason to be
Page: 42
proud of our achievements. And our gratitude and appreciation also go to our Pioneer Generation for laying the solid foundation for us to build on.
However, doing the big things right is not good enough. Today, our citizens also want the Government to do the smaller things right and to do them well. As we progress and as the population grows in affluence and get better educated, expectations and demands will naturally go up. Every citizen wants a better quality of life for themselves and for their families. We want today to be better than yesterday; tomorrow to be even better than today.
Hence, it is understandable that Singaporeans are concerned when they read about reports of operational lapses, such as those at the ICA Checkpoint, shortage of hospital beds or the breakdown of MRT lines. Though the lapses are not systemic in my view, I hope the Public Service and the agencies can review their processes as well as their people management and culture so as to meet the higher expectations of our people. We must strive to be the best in class and commit to keeping operational lapses to the minimally acceptable level.
Often, we hear residents complain about amenities that lack thoughtfulness in design, service gaps or blind spots that they encounter. And in some cases, say, the new home buyers, they complain about some of the HDB defects and the poor finishing, and so on, just to cite a few. So, while by and large, Singaporeans are satisfied with the service delivery by the Government agencies, it is often the last 5% of delivery that left much to be desired.
Take, for example, the recently opened MCE. Wonderful add for our expressway. We spent quite a few billion dollars on it. But when it came to the opening, we could have done better in terms of communicating. So, that is the 5% that I am talking about.
We need greater focus within our system to deliver this so-called \"last 5%\" even better. It requires a mindset change and a culture shift and to internalise this customer-centric thinking into the system. The attitude must be to help make every day a better day for the customers – our residents – or, in Chinese, they call it \"成人之美\". We must always have that attitude.
I applaud the recent announcement by the Transport Minister on a programme to better connect MRT stations to surrounding developments, such as schools, healthcare facilities and public amenities, by building sheltered walkways within the 400-metre radius of the stations. So, that is something that
Page: 43
is good. We spend billions of dollars building the MRT lines and it only makes sense for us to enhance the last-mile experience.
I want to quote what the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Public Service leaders last year:
\"We have to be customer-oriented. We have to see things from the perspective of those we are serving, those who are on the receiving end when we make and carry out policies. We have to understand the realities on the ground to identify and solve problems before they become serious and not discover them too late.\"
As a Member of Parliament on the ground, I look forward to working with the Government agencies to not only deliver the 95% well but also the last 5% as well. Madam, if I have time, can I continue my speech in Mandarin?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I learnt a valuable lesson from this year's Budget. A lesson on values shared by the state and the society, that is, the importance of knowing our roots and showing gratitude. Be it as a country or as an individual, we need to remember where we come from and who have contributed to our growth, so that we can move towards becoming a more compassionate and caring society.
The Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) is not only generous but also far-reaching. It is also one which provides social dividends to our country and society.
Our founding years were a volatile period, filled with unrest and challenges. But with the selfless commitment and unwavering spirit of our pioneers, Singapore came along, one step at a time, to become who we are today – a prosperous and stable country.
To show our appreciation for our pioneers, the Government has launched this PGP and set aside $8 billion to set up the Pioneer Generation Fund. This is to provide lifetime health care subsidies for 450,000 pioneers who are aged 65 and above this year. The PGP is the highlight of this year's Budget. It also exemplifies the value of remembering where we come from and who have contributed to our past. Most importantly, it is the most practical way to help
Page: 44
these pioneers.
For the pioneers, healthcare cost is no doubt a major concern and a huge burden. Every now and then, I would hear of older residents who groused that they would rather die than to fall sick as they do not have enough savings to pay for their medical expenses and they did not buy insurance to cover their conditions. With the PGP, the pioneers no longer have to worry about not being able to afford their medical fees and can have peace of mind and enjoy their golden years.
As the PGP covers various medical subsidies, it is therefore very important to explain clearly to them the various benefits they would receive through the package. As we know, many in the Pioneer Generation might not communicate in our four official languages and they would probably be more familiar with dialects or even Singlish, which is a mix of various local languages. So, I suggest that the relevant Ministries and agencies put in more effort in their communications to the pioneers and explain the PGP in languages which they are familiar with so that they could truly understand the package and the benefits they would receive. This would make the PGP a truly comprehensive and complete package.
Besides Government-led medical subsidies, I also hope that the general public and business sectors would also show appreciation to our pioneers in other areas. Businesses can offer special discounts or promotions for the pioneers, or they can also set up priority service counters so that the seniors do not need to queue for a long time.
Singaporeans are busy people who are always racing against time and in a constant pursuit for economic growth and success in career. As such, we often face different kinds of challenges and we tend to take things for granted, so much so that we forget those who contribute selflessly.
I hope that the message in this year's Budget can encourage our people to slow down our pace to reflect upon the meaning of life and appreciate all who have helped us. Perhaps this will be the most precious gift we can offer in this year's Budget.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, the Pioneer Generation Package is the highlight of Budget 2014. For the Government to set about
Page: 45
assuring an entire generation of 450,000 people of meeting their healthcare needs for the rest of their lives, is unprecedented.
Just as unusual is to have these subsidies funded entirely and through the long term, with a hefty $8 billion provision out of the present Budget, thus relieving future generations from carrying this costly gesture. It is also noteworthy that the funding of this package was achieved without the need for any obvious trade-offs or the need to raise taxes.
Many Singaporeans may not yet appreciate how extraordinary a feat this is for any government to be able to pull off. How many governments in the world can deliver such a commitment to its people and still maintain fiscal balance?
We should take great pride in the way Singapore's finances, managed with exceptional skills in a climate of fiscal prudence, have enabled us to provide for our people.
This Budget also reveals important trends that we should call to the attention of our people. Not many have discussed these numbers. Let me just recount some of the key trends.
Median wages have increased by about 9% in real terms in the five years to 2013, outperforming other Asian Newly Industrialised Economies (NIEs) and avoiding the wage stagnation or decline seen in many advanced economies. We are close to full employment, with the citizen unemployment rate at a low 2.9%. Social initiatives carried out in the last five years, plus further steps taken in this Budget, represent 2.5 times more support to lower and middle-income Singaporeans when compared to their situation 10 years ago. The Government's strategies to level up our society and mitigate inequalities have, in 2013, enabled Singapore's Gini coefficient to reach its lowest point in over a decade.
Madam, at this point in the discourse, we might be quick to say, \"Of course, the Government can always do more\". But we should be careful not take the progress we have made on these fronts for granted. Indeed, we should recognise that these impressive trends can easily reverse!
Such achievements are the result of carefully calibrated Government interventions, from Workfare to the Wage Credit System, designed to better the lot of lower-income earners. I applaud the Government for its strong efforts in
Page: 46
building a fair and equitable society.
With the Pioneer Generation Package, the seniors will be honoured with generous healthcare subsidies. I also commend the Ministry for delivering the package in such a beautiful package: It gives public recognition to a special generation who brought Singapore from Third World to First. It is a tribute to their significant contributions to society, and not a charitable handout to the frail and needy.
The coining of the name \"Pioneer Generation\" confers nobility and dignity. When we address seniors by this phrase, I see big smiles and proud faces. To many, the honour of being named a Pioneer of Singapore means much more than even the tangible benefits of this package.
To build on this further, I propose that the Government issue an official Pioneer Generation card to identify these special individuals. I hope the wider community, particularly the enterprises, companies, will dovetail efforts of the Government to serve our Pioneers, offer them special discounts, priority queues and privilege programmes as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility programme, as Member Liang Eng Hwa has also suggested.
Madam, let me now highlight some areas where urgent work needs to be done to aid the implementation of the Pioneer Generation Package. First, we need to get the communication right: the Pioneer Generation Package seeks to be comprehensive and offers targeted support. We must not underestimate the effort needed to ensure that seniors understand the different components, the different tiers and the different effective dates of the healthcare package, so that they can benefit fully from it and have peace of mind. Most importantly, many seniors have pointed out that the Package's subsidies will only be meaningful if the escalating medical costs are moderated. Otherwise, it will be a case of \"in one pocket, out the other\".
Also, not all seniors have CPF accounts, which are needed in order to receive planned Medisave top-ups, special efforts should be taken to ensure that those without Medisave accounts are still able to receive financial support.
Furthermore, additional funds in Medisave and the expanded use of MediShield Life as a financing mechanism imply more work is needed to bring them closer to actual clinical practice. The two schemes started out historically as means to fund inpatient care and have only recently been expanded to
Page: 47
outpatient and community care.
So, I hope that the Government can do more in the coming years to transform our subsidies and the 3M: Medisave, MediShield and MediFund framework, to better match the way healthcare should be delivered. We need to place greater emphasis on preventive healthcare, and stronger structures that promote ambulatory and home care. The use of Medisave should also be made more flexible to cover a wide range of outpatient treatments.
Finally, the experience of many countries suggests that increased funding may lead to a surge in utilisation. I hope the healthcare delivery system will be systematically prepared for this possible surge so that waiting times and the quality of care will not be compromised in any way.
Moving onto the subject of productivity: as the Finance Minister said, \"Raising productivity is at the centre of our economic agenda. It is the only way we can raise our living standards in the years to come\". We are now nearly five years into the economic restructuring programme, with the Government having rolled out one scheme after another. It is disheartening to see productivity at zero growth last year and negative 2% the year before last.
The economic restructuring efforts need to be intensified urgently and everyone can play a role: the Government, businesses and workers. Madam, please allow me to highlight some points in each area.
On the part of the Government, I am heartened to see the extension of the PIC scheme for another three years to 2018. Business transformation takes time. The new PIC+ scheme is welcome – it addresses SMEs' requests for more support in order to make investments that could transform the business. There is also support for business and technical capabilities, financing and internationalisation.
Assistance to SMEs has been a key feature of this year's Budget. Whilst it is not the job of the Government to pick winners, the intent to reward \"more dynamic and efficient\" SMEs who make substantial investments to pick up their productivity is the right one.
For productivity-laggard industries, such as construction, the Government should not limit their strategy to just wielding \"big sticks\", but should offer \"juicy carrots\" to incentivise the adoption of productive technologies. For example, the Government should launch a framework that rewards developers with
Page: 48
lower foreign workers' levies when they deploy productive construction designs and technologies. Also, more support is needed to provide the necessary infrastructure for scaling up precast and prefabricated facilities, so that the components can be accessed easily and cost-effectively. In short, the Government can play an active role in transforming the whole construction eco-system.
The Government should intensify their efforts to develop a new generation of industrial facilities to improve land productivity and also moderate significant hikes in industrial rent. They can play a key role to facilitate industry restructuring through the provision of shared facilities equipped with a full suite of logistics services, such as the JTC Food Hub with integrated cold-room warehouse facilities.
As for businesses, more and more companies accept the need to make productivity gains as a business imperative. But many are only now starting that journey, at a time when many SMEs are struggling just to survive with cost escalation.
According to a report by the SBF SME Committee, the number of SMEs falling under DP's \"High Risk\" Credit Rating has risen to an alarming 43% in 2012, from 25% in 2008. So, for many business owners, it feels a little bit like trying to keep your plane in flight whilst changing the engine.
Madam, thus far, productivity initiatives have focused on gaining efficiency through adopting new technology, automating processes and reducing manpower. But we should not ignore the impact that an engaged, empowered and motivated workforce could bring to a company's productivity.
The Randstad Report showed that 23% of Singaporean workers felt unmotivated and that their skills were not being used effectively, while 64% planned to leave their jobs in the next 12 months. The top reasons for dissatisfaction were an unsuitable corporate culture, difficult bosses and being asked to do more with less. The survey showed salary expectations were important, but that Singaporeans were also motivated knowing their contributions mattered. The Gallup report had similar findings. They found that 91% of Singaporean workers are either \"not engaged\" or \"actively disengaged\". This means that the employees lack motivation and are less likely to invest effort in meeting organisation goals, and they are, therefore, less productive than they could be.
Page: 49
I often hear bosses lament about how difficult it is to motivate Singaporean workers and that their staff's expectations are difficult to meet. On the other hand, I hear employees speak frequently about not being appreciated, about being over-worked and how their employers make unreasonable demands on them.
Madam, I believe that the management culture in many companies needs to evolve to spur innovation and productivity improvement. All leaders will agree that people management skills are critical to the effectiveness of any organisation. To this end, I urge businesses to invest much more in the training and development of managers to help them engage their staff more effectively.
The culture at the workplace needs to be one where employees feel that their views are taken seriously, their input helps to improve their companies and they have a stake in helping their employers succeed. The traditional top-down approach needs to give way to one that is more nurturing, flexible and collaborative.
On the part of the individual, I refer to the Finance Minister's call for a \"cultural shift\" among Singaporeans. This is, arguably, the most difficult and yet the most important pillar of our strategy. Without the buy-in and commitment of the individual workers, no amount of policymaking, corporate incentives or HR development will work. All citizens, young and old alike, yearn for a better future for themselves and their children. If we collectively recognise that we are better able to achieve this goal by changing mindsets about the way we live and work, then we would have begun to shift culturally.
We would be shifting towards a culture of excellence and mastery, of taking pride in the work we do, of becoming experts and craftsmen in our trade. A culture of being self-directed to seek knowledge, to better oneself, to want to create, to build and nurture; a culture of seeing ourselves as part of a larger society, of understanding how we can contribute to others, of being aware of the societal and environmental impact of our actions.
We can see this at work in other countries. We are impressed that German car mechanics take so much pride in their work that they attach their names to the engine-blocks. We marvel at how few rubbish bins there are in Japan, because the Japanese take their rubbish home, saving society the high cost of rubbish disposal.
Page: 50
Madam, these are not fleeting instances of productive behaviour. For a long-lasting impact on the way we live and work, this kind of thinking has to be more deeply ingrained. Culture exerts a powerful and pervasive presence. When it is pervasive and persistent and everyone accepts that this is the way things are done, it becomes the norm.
Madam, culture takes time to develop, but it also needs Hope and Confidence to take root; Hope that all stakeholders – Government, employers and workers – will share the same vision and align our efforts, and Confidence that a brighter future awaits those who invest in change.
I hope this Budget marks a new impetus to accelerate the economic transformation that Singapore must undergo to safeguard our future and that all Singaporeans are committed to making it happen. Madam, I support the Budget.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party supports Budget 2014. While my colleagues and I have comments and suggestions regarding certain aspects of it, we agree with the Budget's unique emphasis on the Pioneer Generation, helping businesses restructure and the direction towards strengthening social safety nets, particularly in healthcare. The specific recognition of Persons with Disabilities is inclusive. While the details of some schemes are not available yet and should be scrutinised later, we welcome these general thrusts.
We also note the relative absence of new taxes on the revenue front. This is thanks to the expected healthy continuing contributions of Singaporeans and others in existing taxes and charges, such as income and corporate taxes, GST, COE premiums and others. However, a significant additional burden is placed on those who are involved in tobacco, alcohol and gambling activities. This is expected to bring in additional revenue of nearly half a billion dollars. Though some may argue that indulging in some level of such activities is essential to de-stress in Singapore, one cannot really quarrel with the rationale of preventing excessive indulgence in them.
This year's focus on supporting the Pioneer Generation for the rest of their lives is a refreshing departure from public conversations of the past. Instead of just urging respect for our elders as a virtue, some public monies are being set aside to support this special group. Instead of attributing Singapore's progress
Page: 51
mainly to visionary leaders, we are recognising the contributions of everyone else on equal footing, from followers to mothers and labourers.
Many of us who grew up in Singapore are children of the Pioneer Generation. Some of us are old enough to recall the early days of nation building, and how our parents muddled through uncertain and even stormy weather to forge a future for a small country. For instance, in 1967, when the British announced that it would be withdrawing its troops from Singapore, we were left with a huge defence lacuna, and had to dig deep to find manpower and expertise to build our own army. The search for instant officers and instructors led us to draw personnel from other services, including the Police Force. I had the privilege of witnessing some of these events personally, through the lens of my father, who was seconded from the Police to the army to become the first batch of SAF officers in the 1960s.
He and his colleagues from the Ministry of Interior and Defence had to quickly build our Armed Forces. They put their noses to the grind and learned from Israeli consultants, here and in Jerusalem. The early officers set up units and drew up Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). They also had to manage the huge undertaking of compulsory National Service for all Singaporean males. The early political leaders, too, were very hands-on and kept abreast of many details. I have seen old black-and-white photographs of my father giving briefings to then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who used to visit army camps with his family dressed in shorts; these photographs told perhaps of a different working culture then, with little time for pomp and ceremony.
The contributions of the Pioneer Generation went beyond themselves and extended to those they coached, trained and influenced. Besides being our parents, we also encountered them in hospitals, schools, workplaces and in National Service. In 2006, when I was first sworn in as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, I had a brief conversation at the ceremony reception with the then Foreign Minister George Yeo. Mr Yeo told me that he had been taught Military Law by my father in the army, and that he believed the Prime Minister had been, too. It is, indeed, quite mind-boggling to think of how many Singaporeans are inter-connected through their links with pioneers.
Turning now to the Pioneer Generation Package itself, I agree that it should not be means-tested, unlike most other Government schemes. This universality of entitlement is a very important recognition of all our pioneers, regardless of where they live now or how much they have earned over the years.
Page: 52
The focus of the Pioneer Generation Package is on healthcare financing needs. Some have reportedly lamented the lack of benefits while one is healthy. However, the pioneers I know, by and large, will welcome the additional financial support for illness.
Sometime last year, I bumped into an elderly gentleman at Ghim Moh Hawker Centre who said he knew my father as a former colleague in the army. When I told him that my father had not been well after suffering two strokes, the gentleman replied wryly, \"We are all not well\".
To this end, enhancing subsidies for outpatient care at specialist clinics and polyclinics is appropriate. Including all pioneers in the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) will also benefit those living in private property who consult outpatient general practitioners near their homes. As for those who are disabled and unable to perform at least three of the six activities of daily living, they are probably saddled with very high healthcare bills; the annual cash assistance of $1,200 or $100 a month is a small token of support.
Another component of the Pioneer Generation Package is the MediShield Life subsidy. All pioneers are promised subsidies to pay their MediShield Life premiums, ranging from 40% to 60%, increasing with age. I would like to seek some clarification on this. The Government has announced its intention to bring all pioneers into MediShield Life. However, some pioneers who are not currently on MediShield had bought their own Medisave-approved private healthcare insurance. Will the pioneers with private healthcare insurance be given the choice to use the premium subsidies for MediShield Life for their private insurance premiums, instead of being compulsorily brought onto MediShield Life?
Finally, one significant cost item for pioneers is medication. For patients who see specialists at public hospitals for chronic conditions, the consultation fees are usually much smaller, compared with the cost of medication, which patients need to take daily for the rest of their lives. The majority of our pioneers have one or more chronic conditions requiring daily medication. The Budget mentions that the Government intends to enhance subsidies for medication, with a higher subsidy for the Pioneer Generation. To be of optimum benefit to the pioneers, I hope the review will identify the drugs which are usually needed by this group and focus the higher subsidies on those drugs. We await the details of the medication subsidies in due course.
Page: 53
Mdm Speaker, my colleagues will be speaking on other aspects of the Budget but, for now, let me conclude.
As we approach our nation's 50th anniversary of Independence, it is a useful time to reflect on how we are bound by ties through the Pioneer Generation. Their high sense of commitment to Singapore lifted us through hazy beginnings and daunting odds. They had little time to complain, but just got on with what needed to be done. Their fighting spirit inspires us, their children, to defend what they have built and to bring our country to greater heights.
Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, in my last Budget debate, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister not just for a thoughtful Budget Speech, but also for being a champion of inclusiveness. Many of the new social initiatives introduced in the past few years would not have seen the light of these chambers without his support.
I would also like to thank him for listening. Last year, I asked that a minimum wage be considered for certain vocations, as a first step. This year, the Progressive Wage Model is being mandated as licensing conditions for cleaning and security companies.
Two years ago, I asked for a Social Review Committee to create a new shared vision and new social compact. We then had \"Our Singapore Conversation\". I also said that Singaporeans were not pooling healthcare risks enough, and too much of healthcare spending was out-of-pocket from the patients. The Deputy Prime Minister then agreed that we have to think about increasing the scope for risk-pooling, and, today, I am glad we have the review of MediShield Life.
Certainly, I am not so deluded as to think that any of these initiatives were adopted just because of what I said; or that the Deputy Prime Minister is the only one listening. But the important thing is that we are moving together in the right direction.
At this year's Budget, one large step we are taking together is the Pioneer Generation Package, whose generosity no one outside Government could anticipate. No one also seems to be questioning whether that generation deserves it. They do, for reasons we have heard and I am sure we will hear from
Page: 54
many others, and I will just add one reason. That generation lived through periods of high personal tax rates, of up to 55%, and accumulated large Budget surpluses. These went into our national Reserves, and I find it quite fitting that it is the returns on investing these reserves that make it possible for us to afford the $8 billion. Maybe the only quibble left is, why do we take so long? But that is not worth spending time quibbling about.
My grandfather was part of that Pioneer Generation and, actually, the pre-Pioneer Generation. This year is the 10th Anniversary of his passing on. I only recently had a chance to read through the transcripts of 13 hours of oral history he provided to the National Archives in the 1980s. I marvel at the mentality of his generation – how they were ever ready to serve the community to initiate, support and get things done; how they were creative, tenacious and self-sacrificing at the same time. Where is that pioneering spirit today?
In family advisory work, there is always a concern, for wealthy families, that they would be unable to preserve human, intellectual and financial capital over generations. Hence, we have sayings like, \"rice paddy to rice paddy in three generations\", and many other proverbs in different cultures. The first generation – basically, as the thinking behind the saying goes – creates the wealth, the second generation maintains the status quo and the third generation spends and spends, leading to decay.
These concerns apply to a nation, too, like ours, as we have developed so fast. When we look at inequality, we often focus on the issue of poverty, which I also have a strong interest in. But, sometimes, we forget to think about the dangers of excess wealth and its potential impact, like the collective loss of drive and the lack of boldness to try new things.
What would be a way out? Let me borrow an idea from James E Hughes Jr, who has advised families for decades. One way to approach this is to remind every generation that it is the first generation. So, every generation is the Pioneer Generation of their age. So, each generation must see itself as having the same power of creativity, the same capacity to re-energise itself, generate new progress and establish its own identity.
But, first, for every generation to think and behave this way, I believe we must first get our social fundamentals right. I believe we are no longer in the era where economics leads the social. The old narrative is that we need to take care of the economics first, because jobs are the best social welfare, that if we are economically weak, we would not be able to afford our social programmes
Page: 55
and that if social safety nets become a hammock, we erode the work ethic.
I do not disagree with these points, but I disagree with the notion that economic health consistently trumps social health. They are both equally important and are inextricably linked. Their relationship is circular, not linear. In the first place, is not the end of job and wealth creation social – to provide for our loved ones and to meet human needs and aspirations?
Establishing a new social compact, adopting appropriate social safety nets, enhancing social trust and reducing social inequities do not just create the political environment in which sound economic policies can be implemented, but they also directly create the conditions for sustainable economic and corporate success.
Seen in this light, the need to manage high costs downwards for citizens, for example, is not about satisfying citizens' cravings for more welfare and subsidies. It is about establishing a firm base that allows a significant majority of Singaporeans to transcend being caught up in survival-thinking that leads to discouragement and to hostile behaviour. Lower costs go towards providing the minimally acceptable conditions for the lower income to get by. But it also helps to improve the hygiene factors so that more would be willing to steer themselves from the well-trodden path to start up and create something new.
Hence, I spoke at length about social health last year. Social health complements economic health; hence, we need to measure it. But we must also go beyond just doing the minimum for political expediency. It is not just about getting out of the social recession I talked about two years ago.
So, how does taking care of social fundamentals translate into programmes? Let me touch on a few areas concretely.
One, healthcare. Can we set a target percentage of healthcare spending to be financed out-of-pocket by patients? This is currently more than 50% and I believe it can be halved, with significantly more coming out of insurance, whose premiums can be substantially paid for by Medisave, and state funding. Some rationing is required so that healthcare consumption is focused on treatments that are basic and essential, rather than merely good-to-have. But, first, we need some clarity on what constitutes basic and essential healthcare that Singaporeans should have a right of access to.
Page: 56
Two, housing. Over the past few years, the Government has been doing much to provide affordable and available homes. I would only add one suggestion: to make available housing for singles across all adult ages, either for rental or purchase. Even though I am a strong believer of the traditional family unit, I believe we should encourage our young to achieve independence and a sense of responsibility earlier. Moving out may even motivate one to excel at the things he or she is currently seeking to do, including getting married early.
Three, education. Primary and Secondary school education is essentially free in Singapore. Preschool education is receiving substantially more subsidies. Can we not simply guarantee free basic education for all between three and 18 years? For preschool, for example, a universal voucher can be provided to all children, set at the median fees charged by all operators. Tertiary education fees can be chargeable in the form of a loan whose repayment is a proportion of what the graduate actually earns in the workforce, so that those going into lower paid professions, like in the non-profit sector, can perhaps receive loan forgiveness if they are unable to make full payment at the end of their loan tenure.
Four, income security. While I am a strong advocate for reducing income inequality, I am actually not a proponent for permanent financial assistance, except in cases of people being disabled and too old and unable to work, as much as they would like to. It is important to reaffirm the dignity of work as well as the dignity of the human person to be able to stand on one's own two feet. We must move to a point where, if one puts in an honest day's hard work, one is able to earn a living wage without working overtime. Increasingly, I believe we need regulation, more than subsidies. We can afford to shift more of the additional burden to employers and consumers. We cannot risk a potential emergence of a permanent underclass. In this regard, I do not think the right framing of the issue is whether the Government is moving left enough or too much. I think the main issue is that the on-the-ground realities do not gel with the collective values today or in yesteryears.
Let me touch on the fiscal position to show how we can already afford getting our fundamentals right.
Having used the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula for six years now, I think we can incorporate NIRC into our operating revenues. It has been a pretty stable source of income as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Taken together, total revenue is consistently between 17% to 18% of GDP. On the expenditure side, if we can continue the long-term trend of
Page: 57
reducing security and external relations expenditure to a terminal 4% of GDP and keep economic development and Government administration to around 3%, social development expenditure can comfortably rise to 9% without major tax increases. We will still have a buffer of 1%-2% for short-term programmes to cater to economic, financial and social exigencies.
Today, a lot of expenditures are in special transfers and topping-up endowment funds. These account for more than $45 billion from FY2010/FY2014, or an average of 2.6% of GDP a year. Special transfers can be reduced in the future as transitional packages get trimmed or a significant portion is turned into recurrent operating expenditure. The topping-up of endowment funds, which is a very conservative approach, can simply be ceased.
Getting social fundamentals right is only foundational and the first step. We need to do something significantly more to get every generation thinking it is the Pioneer Generation. I believe we must engender a social renaissance.
The language of a renaissance is different from the language of today. It is not just about restructuring, supporting and mitigating. It is more about reinventing, empowering and unleashing.
We need a more positive narrative that is grounded in optimism and trust in the people, away from one that focuses on scarcity, our vulnerabilities and deficiencies. A one-sided negative view often induces discouragement, cynicism and disengagement. Instead, we need to look further into the future and start envisioning possibilities.
We talk of opportunities in the Budget, but opportunities are different from possibilities. Opportunities are favourable options that come knocking; once you see them, you recognise the benefits and grab them. Possibilities are unstructured and ambiguous; they exist because of our imagination. It is like seeing every block of marble having a beautiful sculpture inside waiting for a sculptor to come to chip away the excess marble.
To see possibilities, we cannot afford to think in a limited way. If we think of Singapore as a sampan, we will not think of possibilities. We cannot go out to explore and conquer the world in a sampan. Since a luxury liner may give a wrong connotation of rest and leisure, maybe the metaphor is of thinking of ourselves as a large exploration vessel, always seeking to be ahead of our time.
Page: 58
Singaporeans must build up more pride and self-confidence in ourselves. We may have one of the smallest populations in the world, ranked around 116th, but we are ranked 35th in the world and 8th in Asia in nominal GDP terms, and ranked 22nd in the world on military expenditure.
Yes, we have problems, and we must acknowledge them honestly and openly. But we have a lot of strengths which we, too, must acknowledge thankfully and overtly, and leverage on them.
We need to move beyond co-creation, to open innovation. It requires a change in culture and disruption in mindset. It is also more about instituting a new way of governance, rather than new programmes.
Each new generation must develop its own pioneering spirit and its own agenda. They need to be trained as leaders and to engage one another to discuss the future. And, collectively, we need to move from vertical relationships to more horizontal relationships. Government agencies need to genuinely empower. Benjamin Zander, a maestro conductor in his generation, reflects in his book \"The Art of Possibility\" that a conductor's \"true power derives from his ability to make other people powerful\". We must similarly move away from a zero-sum perspective of power.
We need to invest in individuals' dreams, passions and journeys. We need to invest in the community. Here, people of all ages need to discuss strategic issues and immerse themselves in the target issues, so that possibilities may emerge. The end is to engender community ownership among citizens. The Government, too, must participate, by releasing non-financial assets it controls like data, knowledge and policy insights.
What is one concrete step that we can take to further this project? I think we can begin by extending Our Singapore Conversation into a permanent platform, where the dialogue has purpose and meaning, where dialogue turns into activities that are generative, and activities turn into an entire movement that harnesses the creative energies of the community to spawn programmes, policies, experiments and enterprises. A renaissance, indeed.
We can work towards 2015, with our 50th birthday as the backdrop, being the year where everyone works together, to not just celebrate, but also to create change in all sectors. And maybe we would have arrived if this House can one day debate an item in the Budget that is not just for a Pioneer Generation of the past, but from a Pioneer Generation of the present. Can we imagine that
Page: 59
possibility? With this, I support the Budget.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Much has been done by the Government to help low-wage workers through the various initiatives, such as Inclusive Growth Programme, Workfare Scheme, mandating the adoption of the Progressive Wage Model and many others. There is no single magic wand when it comes to helping low-wage workers to have better jobs and better wages. It requires various types of support, but common to all is that it requires the support of everyone – the Union, Government, Employees, Employers and the public.
Mdm Speaker, we need a new narrative in our efforts to help low-wage workers. A new narrative requires us to do things differently and this will only happen if we challenge our assumptions and make a paradigm shift in our thinking.
The Labour Movement believes that every worker needs the \"4P\"s – Protection, Placement, Progression and Privileges. I hope the Budget would continue to allow the Government to support the labour movement in our push to accord all workers these \"4P\"s. I would like to focus on the \"4P\"s for low-wage workers.
Mdm Speaker, please allow me to share a story to illustrate why it is important that low-wage workers must have protection. In the course of NTUC's work to help low-wage workers, we came to know about the plight of a 58-year-old woman. Let us protect her identify and call her Mdm Low.
Given Mdm Low's age and little education, she found it difficult to secure a job. Finally, in 2008, she was employed as an outsourced factory production worker in a pharmaceutical company. Although the hours were long and the pay was low, she was happy that she could now be financially self-reliant. However, she was unsure of her employment rights and did not know where to seek help.
Mdm Low got to know about NTUC U Care Centre that was set up with Government support, to help workers like her. Thus, she decided to call the U Care Centre's hotline for advice on her employment rights. During the consultation, the consultants suspected that Mdm Low's company might not have paid for her CPF. Upon further investigation – and to our astonishment –
Page: 60
we found that despite being an employee of the company for five years, the company's CPF contributions to her were zero.
Her case was highlighted to MOM and CPFB who acted swiftly. The company tried to offer Mdm Low $9,000 cash as private settlement to silence her, but she refused the cash offer after consulting the consultants from U Care Centre. After the investigation was completed, more than $10,000 of her CPF was recovered. But she was not alone. One hundred and thirteen of her colleagues' CPF were also recovered in the process. In addition to the CPF recovered, 45 workers also received higher Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) allotment, totalling about $13,000.
Mdm Speaker, the story of Mdm Low illustrates the need for all low-wage workers to have protection. NTUC made a paradigm shift and set up a centre called U Care Centre last year to help low-wage workers, to provide protection in the form of workplace advisory to all low-wage workers even if they are not union members. In addition, NTUC U Care Centre, together with the relevant Government Ministries, organises seminars to educate low-wage workers on their employment rights and the various Workfare schemes. NTUC needs continued Government funding support to ensure the sustainability of our efforts, such as the U Care Centre, to help all low-wage workers.
Low-wage workers are often too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job and, as a result, become victims of unfair employment practices. NTUC U Care Centre will engage communities of low-wage workers to understand their plight and challenges and be the voice with weight to bring about faster change for them. The U Care Centre can serve as an avenue for low-wage workers to ensure that they are treated fairly as valuable members of the workforce.
Mdm Speaker, protection to low-wage workers can be enhanced further if it is backed by legislation, if moral suasion fails to change the status quo. Many low-wage workers are working as outsourced workers. Many of them might also be working for \"fly-by-night\" companies who would cut corners to save cost at the expense of their workers' statutory benefits. The Government must encourage responsible outsourcing by increasing the risk to service buyers when they buy services. Service buyers must be held accountable if their service providers fail to pay salaries or provide the statutory benefits to their workers. This approach is not new because it has been adopted for the Work Safety and Health framework to ensure workers' welfare is not compromised.
Page: 61
Alternatively, the Government can also consider setting up a Hardship Relief Assistance Fund to help local low-wage workers in cases of non-payment of salaries if their company goes bankrupt. This would be similar to the existing Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund provided to migrant workers who may have salaries owed by their employers who have gone bust.
Mdm Speaker, another bold action that the Government can take to help low-wage workers is to make the National Wages Council (NWC)'s recommendations for low-wage workers mandatory for all companies. This requires a paradigm shift for the Government to ensure more traction for NWC recommendations, especially as a tool to reduce the income gap.
Mdm Speaker, sometimes, we need to help the employers to help the workers. A concern expressed by many service providers is the practice of imposing punitive and exorbitant liquidated damages for minor breaches in the service agreement. This leads to a vicious cycle of service providers cutting corners to save costs but at the expense of service delivery, leading to more liquidated damages. In such cut-throat business relationships, it is the vulnerable low-wage workers that suffer in silence because their employers are not doing well to offer them better salaries. I would like to make the call again for the Government to explore the possibility of setting up an Industry Tribunal to mediate disputes over service level agreement, especially in a business environment where outsourcing is becoming more common.
Mdm Speaker, every worker wants better jobs and better pay. In short, Progression – the second \"P\" in NTUC's \"4P\"s framework. When NTUC was encouraging the adoption of PWM amongst the cleaners working for MOE school contracts, we met Mdm Normah who is in her early 60s. She had worked in the cleaning industry for 40 years. In the past, her pay was stagnant at around $600, with no opportunity for training and skills upgrading. With a clear progression structure under PWM, she attended courses, such as workplace safety and health, providing quality service, cleaning of vertical surfaces, glass and ceilings and many others. Equipped with better skills, she is currently a school cleaner in Manjusri Secondary School with a pay of $1,300.
Likewise, her husband, Mr Mohd Latiff, also attended training courses, such as scheduling and supervising cleaning services, advanced cleaning of hard floor and washrooms, and management-cum-mediation skills. He was made a cleaning supervisor three years ago and, due to his training and skills, he receives a higher remuneration of $1,760, which is an increase of more than
Page: 62
$400 from his previous pay.
Mdm Speaker, the Progressive Wage Model can have an impact in terms of helping workers get better jobs and better pay. The Government made a paradigm shift when it took a bold move to mandate the adoption of the Progressive Wage Model for the cleaning industry and made a firm commitment to do likewise for the security industry. There was market failure to determine fair wages due to cheap sourcing, and intervention was needed to ensure workers in these industries receive fair wages and employment terms. I believe that the wages received by workers in these two industries will have a ripple effect on wages of workers in other sectors as well, given our tight labour market.
We can do more to help low-wage workers. Mdm Normah and Mr Latiff are outsourced workers working under a cleaning contract where there is little job security. Both of them might end up getting lower pay if there is a new contract. This is a sad reality but, at least, with PWM being mandated, it acts as a safety net to prevent their wages from falling below the wage benchmark.
It is due to such realities, together with rising cost of living, that initiatives like the Wage Income Supplement become more and more relevant today to ensure that every Singaporean is able to sustain a decent standard of living.
In its Budget, I would like the Government to continue to supplement the income of those at the bottom of our income group and grant them other subsidies to alleviate the heavy financial strain these workers face and allow them to get by in their day-to-day life. More importantly as well, the various Ministries must review their income eligibility criteria for financial or social assistance for our low-income families, to ensure that we do not dis-incentivise the workers from striving hard to get better pay through training and skills upgrading.
Mdm Speaker, the third \"P\" in the Labour Movement's approach to help workers is Placement. Ideally, training should lead to Placement for jobs. Together with e2i and with strong funding support from the Government, NTUC has helped 73,000 workers in the areas of placements, skills upgrading, higher wages and assisting those in need. This includes helping 10,620 workers to be placed in a job. NTUC's Women Development Secretariat collaborated with e2i during job fairs and Work-Pro programmes to help place 800 jobseekers and 600 women to upgrade themselves through employability training. Close to 21,950 workers upgraded their skills for promotion or higher pay. NTUC also
Page: 63
reached out to more than 24,000 workers through many channels and educational seminars.
Mdm Speaker, the beneficiaries are our local workers, regardless of whether they are union members or otherwise. I hope the Government will continue to give strong funding support to the Labour Movement to continue our efforts in improving the wages and welfare of our workers through training and skills upgrading.
Mdm Speaker, every worker wants to be appreciated for the job they do. Last year, the Labour Movement embarked on the \"I Care for my Cleaners\" campaign to encourage the public to express their appreciation to the cleaners. The Labour Movement wants to extend this effort to include many other low-wage workers, perhaps involving those in the security industry. It would be great if the Government can give support so that we can accord low-wage workers some Privileges for them to feel appreciated. Again, this requires a paradigm shift on the use of Government funding because the focus is making low-wage workers feel appreciated. A person once said, \"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.\"
Mdm Speaker, in retrospect, 2013 has truly been a year for the books. The Labour Movement's efforts to champion the workers have helped change the lives of thousands of workers and their families, and looking forward, we will change the lives of thousands more. Let me get back to the story of Mdm Normah and Mr Latiff again. Despite their income, upon seeing that the school was preparing Care packages for the needy children in Cambodia under the Youth Expedition Project, they stepped forward and generously contributed $200. To me, they embody the spirit of the Labour Movement – helping others to get a better life. I hope the Budget will give due consideration to the Labour Movement's effort to helping others get a better life through better jobs and better pay. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] NTUC would like to urge the Government to continue its support to the Labour Movement to ensure that every low-wage worker receives protection, placement, progression and privileges. All these aim to help low-wage workers receive higher pay, manage rising costs of living, lead better lives, and be respected as well as appreciated for the work that they do.
Page: 64
In terms of protection, through various job fairs, mobile fairs and seminars, NTUC has engaged and educated over 27,000 low-wage workers about their employment rights, workfare benefits, training and union benefits. A one-stop centre, U Care, that was set up by NTUC with the Government's support, has helped hundreds of low-wage workers who were not given employment rights by their employers.
On the aspect of placement, through programmes like the enhanced Workfare Skills Upgrading (WSU) and Workfare Training Scheme (WTS), low-wage workers can utilise structured training, obtain transferable skills and vocational training.
In terms of workers' progression, NTUC will also continue to support fair and good employment practices and work together with the tripartite partners to develop and implement the Progressive Wage Model in other low-wage sectors like security and landscape. Efforts to improve productivity will also be enhanced through projects that are used widely, multi-skilled programmes and efforts to engage the SMEs.
The work done by low-wage workers is important. The Labour Movement will continue to introduce initiatives where the public are encouraged to show their appreciation to the services done by this group of workers. In 2013, NTUC launched a movement called \"I Care for My Cleaners\", whereby various companies and unions answered the call for them to appreciate and care for and respect the cleaners working in their buildings. These events made them happy, apart from underlining the Labour Movement's commitment to help low-wage workers obtain better wages.
All these efforts require the support of the Government in terms of funding and the involvement of our Government agencies so that, together, we can bring about changes to the lives of our low-wage workers.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, many things can be done to help low-wage workers, but it requires us to challenge our assumptions and make a paradigm shift. I hope the Government will support the Labour Movement in our efforts to accord every worker Protection, Progression, Placement and Privileges. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Page: 65
Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, after nearly 50 years as a nation, it is indeed timely that we honour our pioneers for their hard work and for making Singapore what it is today. The Pioneer Generation Package is a symbol of our gratitude to the first generation of Singaporeans who saw us through the uncertain, difficult and turbulent times when we became independent. It is apt that we remember, cherish and honour our seniors even as we move forward and look to the future of our nation.
Looking past the symbolism and ideals, there is a very real pragmatic need for the Pioneer Generation to receive special measures. At the time of Independence, there was no opportunity to contribute to Medisave, and so many have not been able to save and ensure that they have enough to see them through their senior years. Life expectancy has dramatically increased and so the expected length of time that they may spend as retired has perhaps doubled or tripled, meaning that their savings will be spread even more thinly. Finally, as a result of our incredible economic progress, the relative valuation of their savings has fallen.
So, we have a bold gesture, perhaps a symbolic gesture – a move to hold up ideals and values that we should celebrate, as we celebrate the individuals who held those ideals high. An opportunity to honour and cherish our seniors, but also a way to put to rest any lingering anxieties about the ability of our society to care for and look after the healthcare needs of this important part of our family. The package consists of a complex series of interlocking mechanisms and policy changes but, at its heart, is an idea, \"We will look after you.\" A symbol and a set of ideals, but also a measure to address a real need, the gap between the healthcare needs of our seniors, and their ability to finance those needs themselves.
With the idea of real needs, I listened with interest to Mr Laurence Lien's suggestions. He called for free education while acknowledging that much of the education is currently very low cost. Free education is not free; it is very, very expensive to the society as a whole. To those societies that deliver free education, there is a very high taxation burden and it drives the behaviour for individuals to seek private education. And so the access to opportunity differentiates across the income spectrum. What is the outcome? The outcome we need is equality of opportunity for all. And free education – will it improve the equality of opportunity by giving similar access to everybody? I am doubtful of that.
He also called for the envisioning of possibilities and talked about the reality on the ground. I have to say I take umbrage with this. Ninety percent, 95%, 99%
Page: 66
of the time, the reality on the ground is that Singaporeans work hard, they are rewarded for their hard work and they do envision the possibilities. They do have pride in the work that they do, and they have self-confidence that they can build a better future for themselves and for their families.
I have one family I know very well through my Meet-the-People sessions in my work on the ground. The gentleman is quite unwell and requires regular help at one of the hospitals. He is unable to work at this point in time. His wife works to support the entire family. But they envision the possibility when their daughter received the education merit bursary. They know that their daughter has possibility, has opportunity, has equality of access to that opportunity and they can see the future. The lady in question has pride and self-confidence in her ability to maintain and provide for her family. We have to pay tribute to the spirit. We cannot deny that it exists on the ground.
I know another family – the grandmother spoke at the Budget Dialogue I attended yesterday. This lady is more than 80 years old. She is part of the Pioneer Generation. She fought, demonstrated, rallied and walked the streets of Singapore in those turbulent times. Now, she lives in a HDB flat with her son, husband and son's family. She stood up and spoke very passionately in Malay and subsequently in English after some encouragement from my colleague, Miss Penny Low. And she took umbrage with the first speaker that day, the first question from the ground, asking the Government to do more. And that particular first speaker had one child, both parents working. This 80-year-old lady that I am referring to, she took umbrage that her son, with his single salary, was able to support her, her husband and son's wife who had stopped working to care for their newborn baby and their older child. One salary was supporting six people. Not that her son made a huge amount of money – he made a modest salary, in a modest middle-income job. But he took pride in providing for his family. They took pride in the fact that they could live through modest means and enjoy life and have joy in life and that, one day, the wife could go back to work and be able to add to the provision and care for the entire family.
This is not a reality of an easy life. Their life is hard, their life has challenges, but they take pride in addressing those challenges, in rising to meet those challenges and we should not reduce the recognition of that. Finally, I recognise Mr Lien's point about the inter-relationship between economic progress and social progress, but I find it highly ironic that he, towards the end of his speech, noted that the entire funding of his social plans could be funded by our continued return on Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC); that economic growth is necessary in order for us to fund an increase in social spending.
Page: 67
If I may return to the Pioneer Generation Package, Madam, as we take this step, as we commit funds and position ourselves to honour this promise, we should look at how it is that we can do this. And this has been referenced in my colleagues' speeches. The $8.9 billion that we put away to finance this package is a price that our society can afford, and how remarkable that is. How truly exceptional it is that, as a nation, we can take this step and at the same time ensure that future generations do not have to carry the financial burden. As a result of prudence, good governance and policies that address key long-term issues of our nation, this amount will be set aside completely using this year's Budget.
The fact that this measure has been taken is a testament to the peace, prosperity and progress that our nation has enjoyed. The way this measure is implemented reflects some of the values that the Pioneer Generation lived by. When times are good, put money away. When things are going well, look to the future and plan for the worst. They lived and planned this way precisely because their future was uncertain. Would independent Singapore survive and thrive? Would they be able to care for their families? If times were good, they never assumed that nothing would change. They assumed that the future was a potentially dangerous place and they prudently planned ahead.
Apart from prudence and a belief in an uncertain future, what other Pioneer values should we celebrate? Perhaps, their willingness to take risks. Of course, much of their risk-taking was pragmatic, and that pragmatism has served us well in our development as a nation. But now that pragmatism for the best choice, for the safest choice, might lead us towards always going for the risk-free choice. The flip side of risk is responsibility. It is only by personally choosing a risk, that one is forced to take personal responsibility for a choice. In the absence of risk, we do not really have to bear the burden of personal responsibility. We see this in the paradoxical calls for support for entrepreneurship. Inherent in the drive of an entrepreneur is the willingness to take risks. If it is a safe choice, it is not really entrepreneurship.
Madam, has our pragmatic mindset led to us becoming a risk-averse society? I do not suggest throwing caution to the wind and taking uncalculated risks for everything. But what about the smaller choices we make every day as individuals, as parents, as families? In providing public playgrounds for our children, we have substituted sand for soft foam-padded flooring. So, no chance of sand in the eyes, or in the hair, or in the shoes, but then the children never learn how to play sand and take the rough and tumble. At the Changi Boardwalk, there is a kelong which is very nice to run and walk past in the evenings but it has railings all the way around. I am not aware of any real kelong that has any
Page: 68
railings. It is very safe, but is there something missing from the experience?
Perhaps, we can make some choices. Perhaps, we can take a small risk of queuing at the second longest queue for chicken rice. Instead of the longest queue, take the risk that maybe a meal might be less than perfect, and take responsibility for supporting that family's business rather than the best, the longest queue. Perhaps, we can accept that playground slides need to be steep and fast and accept responsibility that our children might occasionally get hurt as they enjoy them because the five-year-olds, they know that the point of a slide in a playground is to go as fast as possible and take every possible risk. Perhaps, we can risk allowing football and ultimate frisbee in the Botanic Gardens and take collective personal responsibility for ensuring that those wonderful trees are not damaged. Perhaps, we can risk encouraging our kids to do after-school activities with no clear academic benefit, and take personal responsibility for broadening their horizons, instead of asking the schools to do it.
Madam, we often talk about what kind of Singapore we want. At the Budget Dialogue yesterday, the same one I mentioned, a young lady asked the panel what kind of Singapore we envisioned in five years' time. We could go on as a society doing what we know works, but is that all we want to be? We prosper, we progress but what happens in times of uncertainty? What happens when a danger strikes? The safe, secure and predictable environment we know is replaced by one full of risks and uncertainty. Will we be prepared? Will we be resilient? Will we be brave enough to take the necessary risk?
No policy change is going to achieve this mindset change. It has to be something collective, a consensual decision that we want to be that type of people, that we always want to continue to be that type of people. It will have to start with small personal decisions, with role models making choices that will inspire others to move to the same tune. It will be slow, but it is a worthwhile aspiration.
Madam, when it comes to risk takers, our Pioneer Generation is full of examples; examples that we should hold up, examples that we should celebrate. They took risks; they lived through war, racial riots and times of social tension. They lived through Singapore's early days where there were no tried-and-tested formulas, there were no SOPs. They had to take risks in finding out what works best for them and for our country. We need to find ways to celebrate their daring, their spirit, to inspire ourselves and our youths. By taking risks, by risking themselves, they showed their faith in their own ability to control their future. The solution to survival, to success, to happiness, lay within themselves, and
Page: 69
they rose to the challenge to take control of their destiny.
To the Pioneer Generation, I say, thank you. Thank you for your values of hard work, where you believed that with your own hands you could shape your future. Thank you for your prudence where you understood the future to be uncertain and unpredictable. Thank you for believing that you could take control of your destiny, and through your values, your sense of duty, your understanding of personal responsibility, your hard work, your grit and your sheer stubbornness, you could forge a better future for yourself, that you could make a brighter future for your family, and that you had it in you to drive the peace, progress and prosperity that built the Singapore of today. Thank you. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion [Applause].
Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, good afternoon, may I deliver my speech in Mandarin, please?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Members of Parliament, good afternoon. I am the Immediate Past President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCCI) and the Managing Director of Pacific International Lines.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Finance Minister for having formulated a very inclusive, forward-looking and appropriate Budget this year. The highlight of the Budget is the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package, which demonstrates the Government's respect and care for our seniors. The Budget also encourages enterprises to continue improving on productivity and to pursue in efforts to innovate, restructure and internationalise. We were also encouraged to find that a number of our SCCCI Pre-Budget wish-lists were fulfilled.
The relationship between the Government, people and the business community needs to strike a balance; there also needs to be mutual trust and understanding, timely communication and close coordination. Since 2010, I have participated in the Budget debates and raised some issues in Parliament repeatedly. As the representative of the business community, I am obligated to raise these issues again today.
My speech will focus on three main points: first, how to provide a sustainable pro-business environment for local SMEs; second, the mutual
Page: 70
interaction and trust between Government and private sector; third, can privatisation of Government functions sufficiently take care of public welfare? Should we not consider changing the management and operational model for special service areas?
My first point is how to provide a sustainable business environment for local SMEs. I enjoy watching the Mediacorp programme \"Tuesday Report\". The last episode's focus was on \"Business Succession\", and I was particularly impressed by a story about a third-generation successor. The young man, Gavin Sng, had a University education and held a senior position in an MNC. He resigned to join the family business for two reasons: one was to ensure the continuity of the kueh shop business founded by his grandfather and to retain its traditional flavours for posterity; second, he hoped to rely on his own hard work to enable his family business to grow and prosper.
In the same programme, there was another young man, Alan Ng, who was previously a jockey. He left the glamorous race course circuit to take over his family's bean curd factory and became a successor who gained the trust of his elders and the respect of his employees. Yet another case was of Eric Chua, who loved to cook since young but left home after a quarrel with his father. Eventually, he still came back to take over and was responsible for expanding the restaurant business. Although they were not highly educated, they had a great passion for the family business and were willing to roll up their sleeves, learn, work hard and persevere.
Many council members from the SCCCI have similar backgrounds. Lau Tai San studied Chemical Engineering at Nanyang University and pursued further studies in Canada thereafter. After graduation, he worked for 15 years in Government-linked companies and MNCs, before taking over the reins at Kim Ann Engineering and propelling the business towards high value-added territory. Ang Kiam Meng read Computer Science at a university in the United States; after graduation, he worked for seven years in Singapore Technologies before taking over the management of Jumbo Seafood. He managed not only to expand the family business in a big way, but also set up branches overseas. Kho Choon Keng was a Government scholar and worked in a Government agency before returning to head Lian Huat, a company founded by his father. The company experienced tremendous growth, and the group currently has 20 subsidiaries. Kuah Boon Wee studied Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College in London and he also holds a Chartered Accountancy degree. After graduation, he worked in MNCs and Government-linked companies. Three years ago, he succeeded the family business which is in the oil and gas engineering and engine systems. These examples of our council members
Page: 71
clearly state that family business and traditional industries can continue to flourish and be just as competitive as long as they can be injected with new ideas and methodologies. These examples of successful SMEs are really encouraging; however, they still belong to the minority. SMEs and micro-enterprises which make up the majority of local enterprises are still struggling to survive and grow and deserve much greater attention.
In the past few years, I have given many examples of traditional trades and businesses in my Parliament speeches, including noodle factories, curry fish head restaurants, bookshops, florists, laundries, bakeries, tentage companies, school and private bus companies and so on. These are all SMEs. For this year's Budget, we feel that micro-enterprises and traditional industries have not benefited much from the Budget goodies. Currently, these traditional industries face a number of problems: the inability to find successors, shrinking markets, rising rentals and increasing manpower costs. Thus, I hope that when the Government draws up its policies, it could consider the needs of SMEs and micro-enterprises, especially in areas like land costs, rentals, manpower and Government assistance, giving them some leeway to survive and develop. As Singapore enjoys rapid economic growth, SMEs and micro-enterprises should also be able to reap its benefits; we can then ensure social cohesion and stability and have an even more inclusive society.
Today, the second key point I wish to dwell on is the mutual interaction and mutual trust between Government and the private sector. I am sure everyone still remembers that when the Marina Coastal Expressway (MCE) was opened to traffic on the first day, its gridlock became the subject of much public debate. However, in all fairness, LTA had pre-opening publicity initiatives starting from 12 November 2013, which included a well-produced YouTube video on how to navigate the MCE, with graphics. Mainstream media also reported on MCE on 13 November 2013. However, the reality was vastly different. This situation reminds us that, on the one hand, while concentrating on effective public communication, the Government also needs to consider adopting very different means and channels so that the different stakeholders can comprehend and agree to ensure a seamless implementation. At the same time, the society at large should also adopt a more understanding approach towards the Government's new projects, new policies and make concerted efforts to try them out, make adjustments, and try to shorten the teething period. If there is a high level of trust between the Government and the people, big issues can be minimised on its impact. Once the trust level is low, even small matters can be magnified and blown out of proportion.
Page: 72
The MCE incident has good learning points. In the past, highway designs were relatively simpler, but the MCE designs are rather more complex. Using the same logic, Singapore's business environment gets more and more complex each day. At this time, the communication between the Government and the business community needs to be even more detailed and effective. Our Government is highly efficient. However, if the environment changes and the Government still applies the same methods to promote its policies, problems may arise. In fact, some matters may actually be very simple, but because multiple Government agencies are involved, it gets to a point where no one knows which agency should be held responsible. This is like the case cited by Prime Minister Lee last year, who related the story of catching snakes to civil servants. Thus, I still hope to see the formation of a dedicated Government agency, responsible for coordinating matters related to SMEs, and which can liaise with different Government agencies effectively. This suggestion has been raised before and I reiterate it today.
Recently, there has been a very hot topic. The leases for four hawker centres at Bedok Centre, West Coast, Geylang East Centre and Ghim Moh will soon expire. Currently, NEA is inviting proposals and is hoping that these hawker centres could be taken over by social enterprises. This is a very significant change which impinges on many areas. The hawkers themselves are also talking about this at length. The majority hope that the Government would continue to manage these hawker centres, because they are worried that, just like the REITs did in the past few years, privatisation would surely push up the rental costs.
This brings me to my third point. Can privatisation of Government functions sufficiently take care of public welfare? Take hawker centres as an example. In the past, the Government provided a shelter and proper operating area for the street hawkers, and NEA looked after the hawker trade very well. The hawker stall rentals were lower than market rate, and the hawkers could rely on this for a living. Singaporeans were also provided with places to eat good and affordable food. If the whole paradigm changes and social enterprises become responsible for the hawkers, will this not create other problems? I think everyone is very clear that there is a great difference between business capability and public services. I have been in business for many years, and I believe that, in business, the uppermost concern would be revenue and costs, and the need to survive in the business environment. What troubles me now is: how can corporate considerations adequately look after public welfare and, in particular, the welfare of the weaker segments of society? If we are after efficiency and profit margins, we are bound to see social divisiveness. Is this
Page: 73
the result we wish to see?
Lately, the MRT has continued to be beleaguered by a number of delays and breakdowns. The Minister for Transport has also reprimanded the organisations in question. The Government has invested heavily in public transportation services. Budget 2012 announced that S$1.1 billion would be set aside to purchase 550 buses for the two Public Transport Operators (PTOs), build new bus terminals and lower part of the PTOs' operating expenditures. From June 2013, MRT commuters who tap out at 18 city stations before 7.45 am on weekdays will enjoy free travel. If they tap out between 7.45 am and 8.00 am, their train fare would be reduced by 50 cents. This trial period would last for one year and cost the Government $10 million. Despite all these efforts, commuters do not feel any significant improvement in the transport scenario. I am thinking that despite the very best efforts of the Government and the enterprises to improve related services, and the public still feels dissatisfied, should we change tactics? Should we consider changing the management and operational model?
Singapore's business environment has always been lauded by overseas investors. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, among 148 countries and regions, Singapore has ranked No 2 for three consecutive years, and is second only to Switzerland. Similarly, overseas professionals and expatriates find Singapore the most attractive place to work and live in Asia. Singapore's impressive accolade for business and lifestyle in the region should also be attributed to the contributions of its many SMEs, especially in the services sector, which has provided many diverse options and added to the total vibrancy of our city state.
Singapore has an extremely diversified corporate landscape. We have MNCs and Government-linked companies. But, above all, we have many SMEs in our midst. Many SMEs are established household names which have existed during the early days of our nation-building. They should, therefore, be considered as the pioneers of economic development and are our \"Pioneer Generation\" enterprises. Although these enterprises are neither hi-tech nor high value-added. They are, in fact, the foundation and ways of life of many in Singapore. Thus, I hope that as the Government looks after the Pioneer Generation, it would also look after these pioneer enterprises. The Government should help them to improve and upgrade, provide the small business owners and small factories with a sustainable business environment, attract younger people to join them, and enable them to apply new visions and methods to improve the productivity of these companies. If the Government and the business community can maintain effective communication, SMEs would be
Page: 74
able to welcome a better tomorrow! I support the Motion.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of a Budget that recognises the contributions of our Pioneer Generation and helps to build in place long-term measures to address the future healthcare, retirement and employment needs of Singaporeans. It is heartening to note that the Government has supported the Labour Movement's call for higher CPF contribution rates, in particular, for older workers. I am pleased that the Budget seeks to establish a fair and equitable society by effecting various social transfers to the lower- and middle-income Singaporeans, such as increasing bursary amounts, subsidies for MediShield Life, specialist outpatient clinics, GST Vouchers and rebates on conservancy fees. The Government has also taken a wise decision at this juncture to set aside the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Fund for the Pioneer Generation Package. This provides assurance to our senior citizens for their lifetime medical needs without having to place an excessive onus on successive generations. Many Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) I met were glad income taxes and GST were not raised as these directly affect them.
As I was listening intently to the Budget Speech, I scrutinised the Budget from the eyes of a PME. I listed out what the Government has in this Budget fleshed out for the PMEs, otherwise known as the middle income or the sandwiched class. In my speech, I would, therefore, like to address the concerns of PMEs and how this Budget can support them in a tangible way. I would also be elaborating on the efforts that NTUC has embarked on and will be embarking on to support the PMEs, primarily through the 4P framework. Finally, it is also imperative for us to understand how we can raise the productivity of companies and workers, including PMEs, so that we can share the gains and bring about real wage increases in the next lap.
My fellow Labour Members of Parliament, Mr Heng Chee How and Mr Zainal Sapari, have shared about the 4P framework by NTUC. The 4Ps of Protection, Progression, Placement and Privileges serve to underline and anchor the four key thrusts of NTUC and the Labour Movement for all collars of workers. NTUC has been supporting the PMEs in multiple ways for the past three years using this 4P framework. With high costs of living and mortgages to pay, our PMEs' greatest concern is job security and lack of income growth. PMEs I met have shared with me, every single provision that comes from the Government and the added voice and help from NTUC will be much needed and appreciated boosters. The Budget measures announced complement well
Page: 75
with NTUC's 4P focus and seek to address many PMEs' needs and concerns.
In the area of Protection, NTUC, with the support of our tripartite partners, has advocated and brought about the extension of scope in the Employment Act for PMEs earning up to $4,500. This was a breakthrough for us as this was kept sacred since the Act was promulgated in 1968. From next month, PMEs will have added protection and recourse when they are terminated or when they are unfairly dismissed. There is also protection for PMEs with regard to salary payments, unauthorised deductions, public holiday entitlements and statutory paid sick leave. The amendments will see us providing added protection to more than 300,000 PMEs in Singapore.
Given our open economy, we are aware of our PMEs' concerns that they are facing greater foreign competition for jobs. Hence, NTUC lobbied for labour market testing since 2011. I am glad that the Government has heeded our call and the Fair Consideration Framework, FCF for short, will take effect in August. This will help build a Singapore Core and provide a level playing field for our local PMEs. With the FCF comes a National Jobs Bank which will be a great boon to provide transparency and support PME placement and progression opportunities. The qualifying salary for EP holders was also raised from $3,000 to $3,300 to keep pace with the changes of PME salaries. In addition, I eagerly look forward to working with the tripartite partners to drive the second phase of Employment Act changes and the upcoming Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill this year which will allow rank-and-file unions to collectively represent PMEs.
Notwithstanding these changes, at our PME Centre, we are still receiving enquiries from PMEs earning more than $4,500 when they have workplace issues, such as termination and other grievances. We can assist them when they are from unionised companies. However, even if they are union members, they are sometimes from non-unionised companies and are unable to unionise the company overnight to obtain full union representation. Likewise, our current tripartite mediation framework also covers PME union members who earn up to $4,500 only. In light of this, I advocate for raising the bar of our existing tripartite mediation framework in both the width as well as the depth to cover all workers and go beyond all issues outside the scope of the Employment Act. This tripartite mediation process should exert more teeth to ensure mediated outcomes have an effect on parties. By the same token, this tripartite mediation process can be complemented with an employment tribunal, possibly with direct involvement by tripartite partners, so that disputes that are unable to be resolved at tripartite mediation can be expeditiously adjudicated.
Page: 76
NTUC and our affiliated unions will continue to ride this wave of changes to protect our workers, especially PMEs. One union matter which I have handled relating to the protection of PMEs is the non-payment of retrenchment benefits by NuTune Singapore to 34 PMEs formerly employed by the company. The executives there have to be represented individually by the United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI) after the company defaulted on the payments. After the Industrial Arbitration Court hearing, the Court ordered the company to pay an amount of $1.79 million in monthly instalments to the workers through the union. Without the strong advocacy role played by UWEEI and NTUC, the Court award would not have been possible. This serves to demonstrate that no matter how harmonious industrial relation is, when jobs are lost through restructuring, unions will be there by the side of workers, in this case, PMEs, to take care of their welfare and interests.
Similarly, when Five Stars Tours suddenly closed its doors in January this year, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union swung into action by providing vouchers to the affected union members to tide them over the festive season. These are but two examples. The responsiveness of NTUC, our unions, especially our union leaders and industrial relations officers, to these two retrenchment exercises is testimony of our determination in extending the same workplace protection to PMEs. In view of economic peaks and troughs, we also see workers affected by company liquidation and workers are sometimes left in the lurch, as in the above cases. After liquidation, wages and benefits due to workers are paid according to a priority of debts under section 328 of the Companies Act. However, after secured creditors and liquidators are paid, there is often nothing left for these affected workers. This is particularly so when SMEs are folded. Over and above what NTUC and unions are already doing for such workers, I am, therefore, submitting that there should be a Consolidated Fund set up by the Government to assist these workers left in the lurch with unpaid wages and benefits.
For the protection of our mature workers, including PMEs, NTUC has lobbied tirelessly for the increase of CPF contribution rates and enhancement of medical safety nets. I would like to compliment the Government's bold move to increase the CPF contribution rates for Medisave by employers for all workers by 1%. For mature workers between 50-55 years old, employers' contribution will be raised by 1% whilst employees contribute another 0.5%. In short, mature workers, including PMEs, can look forward to an overall increase in CPF contribution rates by 2.5% across their Ordinary, Special and Medisave Accounts. Those between 55 and 65 years old will also have their Employer contribution rates increased by 0.5%, making it 1.5% in total.
Page: 77
The issue of quality and affordable public healthcare has emerged as one of the top concerns at Our Singapore Conversation survey amongst 4,000 participants across all income brackets. We know that many of our elderly and mature workers have the constant worry in their mind not being able to afford the increasing healthcare costs in Singapore. I am happy to see that our Government has taken concrete steps to allay those fears. By the same token, NTUC will do our best to take action in the areas of employment and employability of middle-aged and mature PMEs who face the pressures of being in the sandwiched generation.
For the sandwiched generation of PMEs taking care of their parents, in-laws or grandparents, this Budget is providing a cushioning effect with an increase in parent relief. Likewise, the Pioneer Generation Package will also help to alleviate their burdens of healthcare bills of their parents, in-laws and grandparents. This is done through Medisave annual top-ups from the Government, being covered with MediShield Life, coming under the umbrella of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) topped with higher subsidies at polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics.
Moving on to Progression for PMEs, NTUC has since launched the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) which looks at a sector-by-sector, company-by-company approach to introduce career-skills-wage ladders for workers across different industries. The focus will not just be on low-wage workers but PMEs as well. We want them to upgrade, develop, progress upwards and see themselves enjoying good wages, too. NTUC and its affiliated unions have started piloting the PWM model for PMEs. For example, through the Wafer Fab WSQ initiated by UWEEI, Micron has promoted 115 trainees with no formal degree to engineers, and nine trainees with no formal diploma to be technicians.
In the same vein, the training subsidies and assistance from e2i and NTUC that our PMEs receive have helped them move up in their careers and to new jobs. For example, one PME member, Mr Roger Tan, has constantly upgraded his IT skills through CCNA and CCNP certification run by our NTUC Learning Hub PME training wing Next-U. With course fee subsidies by NTUC and e2i, he undertook those specialised IT certifications and landed himself a new job with a 20% to 30% higher salary. These initiatives are deeply appreciated by our PME members, and we should find a way to unify and not dichotomise these funding schemes to give them greater use and traction. I am glad to hear Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announce that he is topping up the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund by another $500 million. This augers well in our pursuit of continuing education and training to future-proof and future-ready our PMEs.
Page: 78
PMEs I spoke to have shared with me that, in reality, career progression does not hinge on superior job knowledge or mastery alone. They may not be productive at work for various reasons, such as the lack of management support and recognition, no work-life balance or, in the worst-case scenario, being bullied. NTUC has thus started a series of legal primers, Crossroad series, webinars and learning conferences, such as the Future Leaders Summit, to motivate them and provide guidance to navigate in their careers. The issue of employee disenfranchisement has deeper connotations for productivity and employee well-being. Gallup's 2013 State of the Global Workplace report found that only 9% of workers in Singapore were engaged – up to 76% were \"not engaged\" or 15% were \"actively disengaged\". More can be done to engage our local employees. I would like to call on employers to invest more into work-life and employee engagement programmes. They will find that happier employees would be more productive as well. It could be useful for the Government to co-fund employee engagement programmes for companies which have genuine difficulties to do so.
In pushing for productivity, NTUC has been advocating for innovations and job redesign, bringing about Easier, Safer and Smarter, ESS for short, ways of doing one's job. I just want to highlight to this House that ESS is not just about mechanisation and use of technology for simple laborious tasks. It cuts across all sectors and all levels of the hierarchy. In my capacity as Executive Secretary of the Healthcare Services Employees' Union, I have witnessed how ESS has taken shape in the public healthcare sector which is facing a manpower crunch. Just two weeks back, I paid a visit to the central pharmacy in Singapore General Hospital (SGH). I saw for myself first-hand how a group of PMEs, in this case, Pharmacists and Pharmacy technicians, embrace technology and used state-of-the-art RFID tagging and automated system to eradicate errors, enhance safety and operational efficiency at the pharmacy. Over at the dispensing counters of SGH's renovated Outpatient Pharmacy, the pharmacist just needs to turn around, pick up the baskets of packed prescription medications, and is assured that they will contain the right medication ready for dispensing to the patient due to the intelligent Automated RFID Prescription Drug Delivery System. In the past, this packing process is labour-intensive, involves many pharmacists and is prone to human errors which could have dire consequences. The incorporation of automation and technology will provide real-time tracking of processing status via RFID, complemented by LED-guided picking of medication through barcode scanning, minimising the possibility of medication errors. With the implementation of the RFID conveyor system, the back-end prescription filling process is automated end-to-end. It clearly demonstrates that PMEs, too, can play a part and be part of the entire productivity drive in
Page: 79
every organisation.
In another example of how Lean Quality Management and \"Kaizen\" to improve productivity and enhance customer service, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital's (KTPH) Accident & Emergency Department has set up a one-stop pharmacy within the hospital's Day Surgery Centre and the Acute Care and Emergency (A&E) Centre. Seventy percent of patients with non-life threatening conditions can be seen within an hour as a result, and they do not have to jam the prescriptions queue at the main pharmacy. The KTPH's Advanced Practice Nurses, APNs for short, who have degree and higher qualifications in nursing, also take on some of the functions performed by doctors, including attending to patients requiring continuing care and prescribing certain medicines, thus reducing the waiting time for patients. This is yet another fine example of PMEs being positively impacted by productivity efforts. Particularly in the services sector, I see the need for us to not just be high-touch and low-tech or low-touch and high-tech but aim to be high-touch as well as high-tech!
Generating productivity growth is the only sustainable way to increase our value-add and grow our incomes. In this year's Budget, I am glad that the Government has paid special attention in supporting the SMEs with the extension of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme, creating a new PIC+ tier, launching the ICT for Productivity and Growth and so on. I would like to know how many of these companies have incorporated pay rises for workers after receiving PIC. As we are setting aside another $3.6 billion for the next three years for PIC and PIC+, I hope that gain sharing can be part of the criteria of PIC and PIC+. I would like to seriously urge employers to share the profits and gains from productivity with their workers.
Moving on to Placement, e2i has conducted 35 career fairs and placed about 4,200 PMEs in 2013 targeting selected PMEs sectors, such as information technology, finance, accounting and so on. There will be more concerted efforts to develop more targeted programmes, such as the \"Step-In\" series for various disciplines such as human resource, marketing for fresh graduates. There are also Place-and-Train schemes for professionals seeking mid-career switches. Examples would be accounts, audit and marine engineering. I believe NTUC and our tripartite partners can do together and do more in this respect.
Some of our affected PME members have benefited from the placement schemes set in place by e2i. Citing the earlier example of NuTune, when a female PME, Jane Teo, also a mature PME, was laid off from the company, UWEEI and e2i stepped in to place her in the Executive Workshop and, subsequently, she was hired by a company as an executive not too long after.
Page: 80
However, unlike this case, mature PMEs I spoke to have lamented on \"ageism\" amongst employers in Singapore. I submit that this has to change. Employers must change their mindsets. Mature employees, too, must embrace change and adopt a positive mindset as well. We have explored this previously for low-wage sectors but perhaps it is time now for us to look at protecting jobs or sectors for our local PMEs, especially the mature PMEs. These could be in roles with lower barriers of entry and we can also tap on selected growth industries and sectors.
I am pleased to note in Deputy Prime Minister's Budget speech that the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) has been effective in helping low-wage workers. With the ceiling up to $4,000, it would already have been helpful for junior and mid-level PME jobs, too. We could perhaps link WCS with the placement schemes run by e2i to help more of our mid-career PMEs and those affected by restructuring to be placed into new jobs created by employers under this scheme.
Last but not least, NTUC and our Membership Communities – Nebo, Young NTUC, U Family and U Live – have been going the extra mile to create new Privileges and engagements with our young PME members. We aim to create greater value for our PME members in different life stages and make a meaningful difference in their lives. Some of the Budget measures like childcare subsidies correlate with the efforts that NTUC is putting in. It would be great if we can have more intimate collaborations with different Government agencies and Statutory Boards in deriving greater efficiencies, lower costs for consumers and bring about greater benefits to PMEs.
For a start, NTUC has started a PME centre offering the 4Ps at e2i on 2 January this year. We will be opening another two centres before May Day this year. One will be in the heart of the CBD where many PMEs work physically, and the other will be a virtual PME centre where many situate themselves and spend most of their waking hours in.
Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Budget has fully affirmed the contributions of our Pioneering Generation. At the same time, it looks after the interests of our middle and lower-income Singaporeans. This is something which is very encouraging to us. From the PMEs or our sandwiched class' point of view, this Budget has provided them with more protection and assistance. I have spoken on the 4Ps of the Labour Movement. I
Page: 81
also have a few suggestions regarding PMEs.
First, I hope that PMEs who earn more than $4,500 a month could also be protected by the tripartite mediation mechanism, so that disputes that cannot be settled through mediation should be allowed to be dealt with by the Tribunal appointed by the tripartite partners.
Secondly, I would urge the Government to set up a designated fund to help those who are retrenched or owed wages due to companies winding up, so that they can tide over the difficult times.
Thirdly, I hope that employers can voluntarily implement the Progressive Wage Model for PMEs as well and raise their productivity. Raising productivity is not limited to lower-wage jobs only. PMEs' productivity can also be raised. The purpose is to raise local PMEs' skills and their salary.
Finally, I hope that we could look into the possibility of reserving some jobs in certain industries for Singaporeans, particularly for older PMEs. We can look into what industries we can reserve jobs for them.
I support this Budget. Let us continue to put the interests of our workers and Singaporeans first. The pain of reform will be gone eventually and we look forward to a brighter future.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, I would like to support the Budget Motion and commend it for being worker-centric and, most importantly, Singaporean-centric.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, please complete your sentence. Your time is up.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: It addresses the short-term pains of companies and businesses in this tight labour market yet, at the same time, lay the foundation with a long-term plan and vision to transform Singapore. Thank you.
Page: 82
Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I am pleased to see that we are honouring our Pioneer Generation through the Pioneer Generation Package. My parents came to Singapore from Malaysia in the late 1950s. They met each other at the then-Teacher Training College, married before Singapore's Independence and became Chinese teachers in Chinese schools. They have since lived here and become Singapore citizens. They worked as Chinese teachers for over 30 years until their retirement.
It was a turbulent era when Chinese schools were the main ideological battleground. Singapore at that time was trying to fight against the Communist influence. My parents have been living in the same house since 1960, which is in the current Joo Chiat SMC. There were then still many farms at Kampong Chai Chee opposite our backyard.
The story of my parents is shared by many of the senior residents in Joo Chiat. They have lived in the same house for more than 40 or 50 years, and have already retired from an ordinary job for many years. Medical cost has always been their primary concern. Even though they have not had any income for many years, they still could not get many of the Government subsidies for their medical expenses simply because they live in private housing. The Pioneer Generation Package will be provided to all eligible Singaporeans, regardless of their housing types and income levels.
In this House, many Members of Parliament are children of the Pioneer Generation. The Pioneer Generation did not leave Singapore because of the danger and hardship we were facing at that time. They are just ordinary people doing ordinary jobs. Singapore owes her prosperity to this generation's hard work. We should respect them, we should honour them for their contributions to Singapore.
Next, I would like to touch on two issues: education and Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs). I shall continue in English.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, in the area of education, the Minister has announced that the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) qualifying income criteria have been raised so that more families can benefit. This is welcomed. KiFAS is now extended to all MOE Kindergartens and to those
Page: 83
operated by the anchor operators. Previously, only PAP Community Foundation (PCF) qualified for KiFAS.
I am puzzled why the extension announced by the Minister is to only these few operators. There are around 500-MOE registered kindergartens in Singapore. PCF operates 235 kindergartens. MOE has five, with up to another 10 being planned for the next few years. NTUC does not operate kindergartens. The three new anchors are childcare operators. I believe that they operate just seven premium kindergartens between them. In any case, the anchor operator scheme is a childcare programme and not a kindergarten scheme. The commercial operators have to set up new operating entities to separate their current operations from the childcare centres that they will operate as anchor operators.
So, in effect, parents still do not have many choices of which kindergartens they can send their children to in order to enjoy KiFAS. From my understanding of the landscape and based on the announcement that was made, they may now choose between PCF kindergartens and five MOE Kindergartens.
Madam, I had spoken about this before. I find it strange that the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC), which is the equivalent scheme for childcare, can be used on all MSF-registered childcare centres. However, when it comes to kindergartens, MSF has imposed various conditions that had prevented others from qualifying. These include conditions, such as the operators cannot have any religious or racial affiliations and cannot be private operators. None of these conditions is required for CFAC. I am not sure what will be announced at the Committee of Supply (COS), but I certainly hope that the schemes can be extended to many more, if not all MOE-registered kindergartens.
MOE has said that character and values education are important. Many of the kindergartens with religious and racial affiliations, such as those run by Buddhist groups, Huay Kuans, Muslim groups, churches and other VWOs, do take in children from the public and have strong character and values education. I wish to see them being included. I will speak again on this during the COS debate.
Next, SMEs. I wish to declare that I own and operate private companies classified as SMEs.
Page: 84
While Singapore enjoyed 4.1% economic growth last year, this economic growth had come about solely because of the growth in manpower. GDP growth is defined as workforce growth plus productivity growth. Productivity growth last year was zero. We cannot depend on economic growth through workforce increases. The Government's long-term goal is to reach 2%-3% annual productivity growth by 2020.
At last year's debate, I spoke of the need to encourage industry consolidation. The current schemes, such as PIC and now PIC+, tend to benefit the larger companies. We have over 150,000 SMEs in Singapore. Many are micro enterprises that may not even employ the three non-shareholder staff required to qualify for PIC cash payouts. Even for small companies that qualify, they may not have the scale to benefit meaningfully from investments in major automation.
Many of our smaller companies are struggling to stay afloat under the tight manpower and high rental cost environment. While raising their productivity and injecting innovation into their businesses should be the way to go, these companies need to scale up first. Last year, I had argued for the need to stimulate Merger and Acquisitions (M&A) so that enlarged companies can better take advantage of economies of scale. I wish to repeat my desire to see changes to tax incentives to encourage M&A.
There is an M&A scheme, first introduced in 2010 and enhanced in 2012. As of May last year, only 42 companies have used the scheme. Thirty-four were companies which MOF classified as SMEs with annual turnover of up to $100 million, which meant that many could be fairly sizeable companies. The average and median size of deals supported by the scheme was $25 million and $3 million respectively. The scheme provides meaningful tax incentives for large- and mid-sized deals but not for acquiring the small and micro enterprises.
I hope to see the Government encouraging consolidation amongst smaller companies through enhancing the M&A scheme. The M&A scheme could be graduated to allow higher tax allowances for smaller deal sizes of up to $1 million in value.
Also, the current scheme allows only for the outright purchase of shares. Some acquirers prefer to buy over the operations and businesses of SMEs, but not the entire company as they prefer not to be entangled with liabilities that may be associated with target companies. We can loosen the definition of M&A
Page: 85
to include such types of acquisitions.
We can also incentivise the acquirers to automate the operations of their acquired businesses to achieve greater productivity and to revamp old business models. We can look at allowing even higher than 400% tax allowances in PIC for investment in automation for merged entities to get them to speed up investments in productivity improvements for the acquired operations.
I note that both the Singapore Business Federation and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) have also issued recent statements for the Government to do more to promote M&A, including improving M&A tax allowances. They too cited the need for industry consolidation to create more breadth within industry clusters for better economies of scale and to reduce marginal costs.
Besides tax allowances, the Government could also look at how financing can be made more readily accessible for M&A. For example, ASME had called for an equity financing scheme to help SMEs fund local and overseas M&As. Such a scheme would make available the option for companies to take on loans for acquisition through pledging equity in private companies. This can be done with risk-sharing collaborations between the banks and our Government. This will be a useful tool for deserving ambitious companies in our midst to grow rapidly through strategic acquisitions and take on the international markets.
Next, on the innovation mindset of our companies.
SMEs are grateful that PIC has been extended for three more years. The scheme has helped defray costs, and many companies have just started to use it. As of April last year, 97% of the claims were for purchases of IT and automation equipment and for employee training. The remaining 3% were for the other four categories, including Research & Development (R&D) and acquisitions of intellectual properties.
I believe innovation is important if we are to derive a lot more out of our companies. I hope we can encourage investments in creating breakthrough business models and technologies.
In their pre-Budget survey, professional services firm KPMG found that 50.3% of 159 companies surveyed felt that the innovation measures in PIC have had no impact on raising innovation. The same survey found that only 1.6% of the
Page: 86
respondents were focused on driving innovation.
The survey highlighted a worrying finding that SMEs and even Singapore public-listed companies have not found benefits in innovation measures. Respondents in that survey commented that Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has been very strict in administering incentives for innovation, favouring revolutionary development at the expense of more market-driven evolutionary development. IRAS has a very strict definition of qualifying R&D activities.
Indeed, this has been my personal experience, too, speaking with technology companies trying to develop the next killer app, or a potential industry game-changing software. They have not been successful in claiming PIC for their R&D manpower, based on the strict PIC definition. I hope IRAS and MTI can review the criteria and work on a more market-oriented definition of research and innovation and to drive more adoption by companies in this area.
Finally, in the area of SME financing. This Budget provides for increased Government risk-share on micro loans to SMEs from 50% to 70%. In a reply to my Parliamentary Question (PQ), MAS has said that it does not call for banks to require that SMEs need a project track record or any specific requirements in order to get a loan. In evaluating loans, financial institutions all have their own criteria, some of which can make it rather difficult for companies, especially those with shorter track records to secure a loan. This may be so even with Government risk-sharing. I hope the increase to 70% will help a bit.
IFS loan caps have now been doubled to $30 million per company. I would like to know, from past evidence, if IFS and existing Government supported financial schemes have sufficiently met the overseas expansion needs of our companies. The total value of loans approved under IFS declined yearly from $378 million in 2010 to $121 million in 2012. Similarly, the Loan Insurance Scheme (LIS) and LIS+ saw total values of loans approved fall from $2.3 billion in 2010 to $1.3 billion in 2012.
The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) had called for an EXIM bank in 2010, only to be deemed not feasible by MOF a year later. There were notable disappointments from the business communities at that decision. Our companies are disadvantaged when compared to other countries like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea where the percentage of total business credits going to SMEs range from 50% to 76%, compared to 27% in Singapore. Even with the increased Government risk-sharing, would financial institutions still be too
Page: 87
conservative in their approach as they still need to bear some risk and there are less risky things to do? I hope the financing situation for SMEs will be closely tracked. If the new measures are not sufficient to meet our SME financing and overseas expansion needs, perhaps the Government can relook into whether it is necessary to create an EXIM bank or a SME bank.
In conclusion, as we honour the pioneers of modern Singapore in this Budget, like the hon Member Mr Laurence Lien, I, too, would like to think of each generation as pioneering for the next. As we approach the 50th year of our Independence and soon, the 200th anniversary of the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles, my wish is to see a vibrant Singapore with innovative home-grown companies and dynamic Singaporeans establishing a new Singapore in this 21st century so as to ensure success for our future generations.
Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin first, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I would like to talk about the concerns of second-generation pioneers. \"Pioneer Generation\" is a creative name which aptly reflects the spirit of the first-generation Singaporeans, their sense of togetherness, hard work and endurance. It also portrays our respect for them.
Our grandparents and parents belong to the Pioneer Generation. The Government estimated that there are about 450,000 of them. In reality, many of those who had contributed in our nation-building had already left us before they were able to see our present achievement. They had dreamt of Singapore's future but they did not get to see it, neither could they enjoy it. They were the \"lost\" Pioneer Generation. While we are celebrating our 50th year of nation-building, they should not be forgotten.
The PGP will provide some relief for the pioneers in terms of medical expenses and, in a way, many of those who are caring for their elderly parents, and who were born in the 1950s and 1960s, will also feel that their burden is somehow lightened. These are the second-generation pioneers, a group which is somewhat burdened.
The PGP announced by Prime Minister Lee has provided assurance for the Pioneer Generation, and the second-generation pioneers can heave a sigh of
Page: 88
relief. But not every government can deliver what they promised. Some countries overpromise and under-deliver, in Chinese there is an equivalent saying of \"the heart is willing but the strength is weak\". But we always deliver what we promise. In Chinese, it means \"we have the heart as well as the strength\". Today, I want to thank our first-generation leaders. If you recall, on 14 May 2011, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made a joint statement to retire from the Cabinet. In their statement, they said, \"the younger team must always have in mind the interests of the older generation\" and \"this generation who have contributed to Singapore must be well-looked after\". The generation that our founding Prime Minister wanted to be \"well-looked after\" is precisely the Pioneer Generation. And what problems are they most concerned with? Healthcare costs. The greatest fears older Singaporeans face include (a) not being able to afford one's medical fees, (b) losing the ability to take care of oneself, and (c) the loss of mobility.
During our founding years, the Pioneer Generation were still young. They were then concerned about daily necessities. Their school uniforms and school shoes were hand-me-downs from neighbours and relatives which, in turn, would be passed down to others who were even younger. But now, in their aged years, they have different concerns. They worry about medical expenses. This shows that the problem of ageing is a pressing one.
I am aware that doctors must have medical ethics and businessmen should have business ethics. As for Government, if it is able to take care of the ailing Pioneer Generation, then it is a Government with political ethics.
Two weeks ago, during a Lunar New Year dinner held in his constituency, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong invited the pioneers living in Ang Mo Kio to stand up for a round of applause to be given to them. We know that it is not easy for old people to get up from their seats, some of them could not even stand properly and had to try to maintain their balance so they would not topple. But when the round of applause was given, they stood and they stood taller than before.
In my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, this is the most generous, inclusive, compassionate package. It had certainly made older Singaporeans very happy.
As the old saying goes, a person who does not plan for the future is a person who faces many problems in the present. Even though our second-generation pioneers now have less worry for the medical expenses of their
Page: 89
parents, they have other worries, none other than the social issues that have cropped up in Singapore over the last two to three years. The second-generation pioneers had been through some turbulent years in the early times of our nation-building. As the country stabilised over the years, no riots have occurred over the last 40 years, and, yet, a riot took place. And when foreigners find it unbelievable that we have not had a strike in 26 years, a strike broke out.
Did we not pride ourselves that high civil service pay would deter corruption? But the corruption cases involving officers in the Police Force, education and foreign services and even CPIB had worried the second-generation pioneers. They asked if Singapore can survive for another 50 years. Did we not say that high civil service pay would be effective in deterring corruption? The second-generation pioneers are also worried about the frequent train breakdowns, poor maintenance of infrastructure and telecommunication woes. Do we still stand a place in the various world rankings?
I want to quote what founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said during his official trip to Australia in 1988. I was part of the delegation as a journalist. With every trip returning from Australia, he would have two reflections. One, he would be filled with pride as Singapore has succeeded against all odds. Two, he would be very sure that in a hundred years' time, Australia and New Zealand would still be around and sheep and cows would still be roaming their land, but he was not sure if Singapore would be around then. His worry then is now the worry of our second-generation pioneers.
(In English): For Singaporeans who were 16 in 1965 and is 65 now, they are now officially termed as the \"Pioneer Generation\". I would like to touch on the concerns of those who were born in the 1950s and 1960s, and I shall call them \"the second Pioneer Generation\".
First, while the second Pioneer Generation are relieved that their parents' and grandparents' medical needs have been looked after, they are worried if our current economic structure can really accommodate them in the workforce for the next 10 to 20 years, as many are now nearing the retirement age and they would like to work longer, work beyond the age of 62. Our employment rate for older workers aged 55 to 64 shows that 65% are employed. The Government should develop a strategy to address the issue. This is no different from the EDB creating jobs for graduates from University, Polytechnic and ITE. We also need to create jobs suitable for the second Pioneer Generation as they live longer and like to work longer. I shall elaborate further during my MOM cut.
Page: 90
The second concern of the second Pioneer Generation is the Integrity of the Public Service. Singaporeans have held our Public Service in high regard and trusted our civil servants in discharging their duties. Many also feel proud that their children join the Public Service. The many crises we overcome together as a people have sealed a strong bond between the people and the Government. However, there have been cases involving public officers in the CPIB, Home Team, education and foreign services who were found guilty of their wrongdoings. Why are there more such wrongdoings, across more services? And would more stringent recruitment criteria and monitoring system, especially for our public servants, help strengthen public trust? I shall elaborate further also during my PMO cut. With that, I support the Budget.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Government's initiatives to honour our Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans.
In August 2011, we released a National Day statement entitled, \"Honouring our First Generation\". In our statement, we said, and I quote:
\"The Workers' Party wishes to pay a special tribute to the first generation of Singaporeans who struggled to build our nation during the early decades of independence. They are now our parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts; the elderly cleaners; the retired civil servants and teachers; the first National Servicemen.\"
\"This generation embodies the true Singapore spirit – the determination to work hard, overcome the odds and carve out a better life for their children. They serve as a shining example for many future generations to follow.\"
\"History may only remember the kings and not the soldiers, but let us never forget the contributions of the first generation of Singaporeans. More than anyone else, they deserve to enjoy the fruits of our nation's success.\"
\"The men and women in our Pioneer Generation have borne society's burdens…They gave the best years of their lives to our nation. Our nation must now give its best in return to them.\"
Page: 91
I think this aptly describes our respect for and gratitude to the Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans.
Madam, it is important that we honour our pioneers before it is too late. Last year, over 13,000 people aged 65 and above departed from us, according to the Singapore Demographic Bulletin. Last week, I met a resident who said that his 80-plus-year-old neighbour was very happy to learn about the Pioneer Generation Package, but sadly, he passed away suddenly the next week before enjoying any of the benefits.
The subsidies for specialist outpatient clinics and polyclinic services, as well as disability assistance, will be rolled out in September 2014, and all pioneers who do not already qualify can join the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) only in January 2015. The MediShield Life subsidies will be applied at the end of 2015.
The Government should expedite the roll-out of the Pioneer Generation Package benefits. For example, since CHAS is already in place, can we allow all Pioneer Generation members to immediately benefit? Although MediShield Life will only be rolled out in end-2015, the Government should start applying MediShield premium subsidies for the Pioneer Generation from this year. The elderly above age 65 are already shouldering a heavy premium burden of between $540 and $1,190 per year for just MediShield Basic.
Alternatively, the Government could consider doubling the planned additional Medisave Top-ups for Pioneer Generation members until the Pioneer Generation Package is fully rolled out, so that pioneers can start to enjoy the benefits of this package sooner. This would provide 65-year-olds an additional $400 in Medisave Top-ups this year and next year, instead of $200 in each year.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that there would be a panel to assess appeals from those who marginally missed out on the precise criteria. Could the Deputy Prime Minister share what are the guidelines the panel will be given to make these assessments? I hope the panel will err on the side of generosity, as many of those who just missed out may have made significant contributions on par with pioneers. In particular, I am of the view that all those who served in the first few batches – and not just the first batch – of National Service (NS) should qualify for this package because they played an important role at a critical juncture in our nationhood.
Page: 92
Madam, it is important to emphasise that the Pioneer Generation Package is not a \"senior citizens' package\" even though all of our pioneers are now elderly. It should not be viewed as the fulfilment of the Government's obligations to the elderly. There is still much that needs to be done for the elderly and future elderly in Singapore, especially people with disabilities, homemakers and low-income workers who will have insufficient savings when they reach retirement age.
Madam, I would now like to touch on a few other aspects of Budget 2014.
First, on the Goods and Services Tax (GST). For the past six years, GST has been the second-largest contributor to Government revenue, after corporate income tax. In FY2013, its contribution of $9.52 billion exceeded that of personal income tax by almost $1.9 billion. In FY2014, GST's proportion of revenue is expected to increase to 17%, up from 16.7% last year.
It is widely recognised even by this Government that GST is a regressive tax because the poor fork out a higher proportion of their income to pay GST than the rich do. The permanent GST Voucher scheme is meant to correct this regressivity.
However, GST Vouchers fully offset the GST expenses for only retiree-led households and the very low income. For other lower-income households, on average, the GST Vouchers offset only about half of the GST they pay each year. Therefore, many lower-income earners are still net contributors to GST.
I note that Budget 2014 provides an additional one-off GST Voucher in the form of cash for seniors and a U-Save Special Payment. However, these are only for this year, and they still do not fully offset the GST expenses for all lower-income households.
Can the GST Voucher scheme be enhanced so that it fully offsets the GST expenses of all lower-income households, and offsets a greater proportion of GST expenses for middle-income households?
This will better ensure that the GST Voucher scheme fully corrects the regressive nature of GST and makes it more progressive.
Page: 93
Next, on productivity enhancement schemes and their outcomes. Before I continue, I wish to declare that I work in the IT industry and in the SME sector.
I agree with the Government's intent to raise productivity in our companies, increase technology adoption and reduce reliance on manpower.
In his 2010 Budget Statement, the Finance Minister said that the \"key goal\" of the Government was to grow productivity by 2% to 3% per year, or 30% cumulatively, over the next 10 years to 2020. He said this will allow Singapore to maintain an economic growth rate of 3% to 5% a year, even with slower growth in our work force. The Deputy Prime Minister reiterated in this year's Budget Statement that raising productivity is \"at the centre\" of the Government's economic agenda.
How have we progressed so far in achieving this key national goal? In 2011, labour productivity growth was 2% over the year before. In 2012, it dropped by 2%. Last year, it was flat – there was no overall growth from the year before.
The Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that while productivity has increased by 11% since economic restructuring began four years ago, this was entirely due to the strong cyclical recovery in 2010, with little improvement since. At this rate, is the Government going to be able to meet the targeted 30% cumulative productivity growth by 2020?
In the last four years, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been transferred to businesses through various grants and tax credits for productivity-enhancement schemes. The schemes introduced in this year's Budget are mostly enhancements or extensions of existing schemes. Given the disappointing overall productivity growth for the past three years, I think we need to examine these schemes to see what adjustments need to be made to produce more positive outcomes.
Budget 2014 will include a major effort to scale up the use of InfoComm Technologies (ICT) by SMEs. The Deputy Prime Minister said the Government will give a stronger push to the piloting and scaling-up of ICT solutions that can help to transform whole sectors, through the ICT for Productivity and Growth (IPG) Programme.
Under one of the initiatives in the IPG programme, IDA will pre-qualify eligible vendors and their solutions. SMEs need not apply to IDA for the subsidy; they can approach the pre-qualified vendors and IDA will reimburse the vendors
Page: 94
directly. These apply to only sectoral solutions currently supported under IDA's iSPRINT programme.
How will the Government ensure that IDA uses a fair and objective method, and that its officers have sufficient industry experience and competencies to select the right vendors and solutions? This is critical because SMEs will be limited to these vendors and solutions – for better or for worse – if they want to tap on the IPG fund. In this respect, would it not be more appropriate to allow SMEs to choose the best vendor and solution that meets their unique business needs, rather than restrict them to a pre-qualified list from the Government?
Under the current iSPRINT scheme, SMEs need to wait for several months for grant approval from IDA, and I am told that IDA asks SMEs many questions before approving the grant. I presume this is to ensure that SMEs and vendors do not abuse the grants. There is also a lengthy business proposal that must be submitted to justify the funding. After evaluation, IDA may decide that the \"qualifying costs\" for the grant will be lower than the actual implementation cost of the system, hence, lowering the overall grant disbursed.
As a result, many SMEs may find that it is not worth the time and effort to apply for such funding, and this will result in a lower adoption of productivity-enhancing technology in SMEs. Only 500 SMEs have benefited from funding for sector-specific proven solutions so far under the iSPRINT scheme, out of over 154,000 SMEs in Singapore. This stands in great contrast to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme, which does not require such a lengthy and onerous application process to obtain funding. Is it no wonder that the PIC has proven to be much more popular with SMEs? Over 80,400s SMEs tapped on the PIC scheme in the last two years.
I hope agencies can adopt a more streamlined approach when evaluating and approving technology grants for productivity enhancements. This will be a key success factor for IDA if it is to reach its target of another 10,000 SMEs over the next three years.
If the concern is that some SMEs and IT vendors will abuse the grants, then audits could be conducted after project implementation and penalties could be put in place to deter such behaviour, rather than weigh down all SMEs because of the actions of a few black sheep.
Mdm Speaker, I have more to say on other aspects of Budget 2014, including defence expenditure, the prudent use of NSmen resources,
Page: 95
MediShield Life, healthcare financing, and helping more Singaporeans to enter the workforce. I will elaborate further on these during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, much has been said about Budget 2014 which was presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. It has certainly created a buzz in the community and it has given us much to hope for. He had presented a compelling proposition in the Budget Statement where he spoke on how we can continue to provide opportunities for the future for Singaporeans, help Singapore to remain competitive, and for Singaporeans, young and old, to fulfil their life goals with greater assurance.
The highlight of Budget 2014 certainly is the Pioneer Generation Package. Mdm Speaker, for a long time, people will continue to debate and discuss on how and what is the most appropriate way to recognise and honour our pioneers. It certainly is not an easy decision but I believe we must honour them for all the contributions and work that they have done for our country. I commend the Government for this very timely effort. From the feedback that I have gotten, it indicates that it is certainly very much appreciated. Nevertheless, we must always ensure that the implementation of this generous package would have a positive impact on the lives of our Pioneer Generation and their loved ones as soon as possible.
Page: 96
Mdm Speaker, I am sure that this House will agree with me that in all that we do, we must always think of Singaporeans and Singapore. I believe this Budget continues on the path of transforming Singapore's economy. It must put Singapore on a firm road to growth and prosperity for Singaporeans. The sustainable growth that we are aspiring to is through productivity, skills and innovation. It is still worthwhile for us to continue to review and ask some pertinent questions: is this a dream or an achievable reality? For many years now, we have been pushing the productivity and innovation agenda. Are we getting traction in the industry and also among our workers? Are we moving in the right direction? Are the resources spent on the many productivity initiatives bearing the fruits that we want?
We aspire for a vibrant economy, with a strong core of Singapore-based companies and well-paying, meaningful employment for Singaporeans, too. Many Singaporeans I met share the similar aspiration of holding a good-paying job or even jobs, so that they can care for their family and their loved ones. Thus, Madam, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind in the progress that we make. I notice the proposed boost of S$500 million to the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. It is certainly good that we are focusing on our Singapore workers' skills upgrading, to make them better workers. Some of the key questions that we could ask: how well is the CET Master Plan progressing? Are the skills upgrading and training programmes of our workforce making the right and relevant impact on our productivity? Are our labour force and talent more able and capable to continue to attract investments into Singapore with all the efforts of the CET Master Plan? How will the skills upgrading programmes and training reduce our dependency on foreign labour?
I would like to reiterate, however, even as we manage the influx of foreign labour, we must not choke the legitimate needs of businesses. I agree though that over the longer term, industry and businesses must come to accept the new reality of the current landscape.
Mdm Speaker, this Government has always invested in our young and in education. Education is, of course, a great social leveller. In Budget 2014, more will be done to enhance financial aid schemes so that all our children are given the opportunities to go further in their education, regardless of their family background. The enhancement to KiFAS and the resources and efforts of MOE to uplift the preschool sector are very much welcomed. I have always been an advocate of a more centralised and Government-driven preschool sector. Nevertheless, we continue to hear feedback of a shortage of kindergartens in certain areas, childcare places in most areas and, more acutely, a shortage of
Page: 97
preschool professionals everywhere in Singapore. I would like to know what more is being done to alleviate these challenges to further improve the pre-school sector.
I am glad to note that the tertiary students at the ITE, Polytechnics and Universities will also enjoy higher subsidies. I am hoping that more could be done here as parents are often concerned about their children's educational opportunities. Our tertiary institutions, of course, have done us proud in many ways. From the jewel of our education system, that is the ITE, to the Polytechnics and Universities – these educational institutions have developed over the years to be models for the region and the world. I am happy that we are not resting on our laurels but continue to improve our system. The setting up of the review committee called \"ASPIRE\" – the short form for \"Applied Study in Polytechnic and ITE Review\" – is very timely.
The ITE and Polytechnics have done well. They should continue to strengthen their core focus and improve their industrial relevance. That is their raison d'etre. I am confident that this review will further benefit the students of ITE and the Polytechnics. With this review and subsequent improvement, I am hoping for outcomes that would result in the deepening of the industry-oriented approach of these institutions with work-study arrangements and, hopefully, including the National Service vocation, if applicable. As part of the CET Master Plan, we must continue to instil in our students the passion for lifelong learning and ensure that this could be done smoothly for ITE and the Polytechnic graduates. In this respect, I am also looking forward to a comprehensive CET progression pathway for our graduates from the Polytechnics and ITE. Mdm Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I am very proud of the positive developments and successes that have been achieved by the Malay community in Singapore. From the days of our Pioneer Generation, the Malay/Muslim community has progressed gradually along with Singapore. The Malay/Muslim community now must continue the good work and sacrifices that have been started by the Pioneer Generation and continue to contribute positively to our nation's development.
Today, it is no longer a surprise for us to hear success stories about our Malay children topping their classes, or even in key examinations in schools. We also have more Malay professionals of high calibre – doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers who are in leadership positions and making their own name in the industry. At the same time, I am equally proud that there are more Malays who are successful businesspeople, including those who are
Page: 98
outstanding in the arts and creative fields.
Mdm Speaker, the Malay/Muslim community has a larger youth base and we should take advantage of this, so that our youths could contribute positively and meaningfully to our community and our nation. In the context of a very competitive labour market today, soft skills, in addition to technical and academic qualifications, are becoming more important and we must ensure that our youths become more competitive and competent in getting jobs.
It is hoped that the Government will continue to work with community organisations to help our youths so that they will succeed in school, so that they can work harder and improve their skills and capabilities for a brighter future. We should work closely with parents, teachers, schools and community leaders to make sure that every child has the opportunity to fulfil his potential. In particular, I would like to call on those in our community who have done well to show care and concern. It is hoped that they will step forward to help in the uplifting of needy families. With this involvement and Government assistance, they will not only achieve a sense of personal fulfilment but also remind themselves that every Singaporean, rich or poor, will have an equal stake and interest in this nation.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, it is clear to me that the Government is making great efforts to address the concerns of Singaporeans. Concerns about the high cost of living and healthcare are genuine and it is often heard loud and clear. It is good that the Government plans to help Singaporeans increase their earnings in the long term and in a more sustainable manner. But short-term needs and direct assistance will also be much appreciated if there are more to be given. Like I said earlier, Budget 2014 has given us much hope. It is about Singaporeans and Singapore. I support the Budget.
Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this Budget debate. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Tharman for an inclusive and all-encompassing Budget that not only recognises the contributions from our elder Singaporeans, but also addresses the hopes and aspirations of younger Singaporeans. Madam, this is a heartfelt generous Budget and I should not be asking for more. However, it is part of our human nature to ask for more and, therefore, it will be \"ab-normal\" for me not to ask for more. Anyway, my fellow labour Members of Parliament have already shared about the 4Ps framework, and it is within this 4Ps framework that I would
Page: 99
like to focus on and highlight three areas of concern, namely, CPF, Women and Tripartism.
Firstly, CPF contributions are important to Singaporeans as it is essentially savings for our retirement needs and, in a broader sense, our housing and medical needs.
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for responding positively to the call of NTUC to increase the CPF contribution rates for workers, especially for those aged 50 to 55. Singaporeans are now living longer – the 50s of today are the new 40s of tomorrow – and it is, indeed, timely to peg the CPF contribution rate to those of our younger workers.
During my first Budget debate in 2012, I raised my concern about inadequate savings of workers in their CPF accounts for financial independence upon retirement. Although the CPF contribution rates have increased, my concern is whether we have a long-term target plan to make sure that it will be adequate for workers.
Mdm Speaker, it is worrying to see the data from the CPF website that only 45% and 48.7% of Singaporeans met the Required Minimum Sum in 2011 and 2012. This means that more than 50% of Singaporeans do not have sufficient money in their CPF for their basic retirement needs and more than 40% of Singaporeans do not meet the Medisave Minimum Sum.
A 2012 survey of 2,000 Singaporeans by Mindshare revealed that 65% do not believe that they can retire comfortably in Singapore, especially with the ever-increasing cost of living. Mdm Speaker, based on such reflected statistics, can our workers afford to retire adequately?
I would like to call upon the Government to consider, firstly, supporting the Labour Movement's call to restore CPF rates for our workers aged 50 to 55 years old to be on par with our younger workers. Secondly, review the CPF contribution rates for a longer term so that our Singaporeans, including the younger generation, will have more savings to retire on. As it is, our workers are already contributing 20%.
As unionists, we are understanding that any increase in the CPF contribution rates must take into consideration the economic conditions of the day. However, with longer life expectancy and greater needs for retirement and healthcare, we hope that the tripartite partners can meet to determine a fair
Page: 100
longer term target for CPF contributions that will also take care of the interests of our workers.
Mdm Speaker, for a worker with a monthly wage of S$2,000, an additional 3% monthly will be S$60. This S$60 may be a small sum to the employer. However, for the worker, this would be S$720 annually and in a career across 30 years, even without factoring in any annual increment and interest, this would be more than S$21,000 additional savings to retire on. This would make a significant difference for the workers.
Thirdly, to look into reviewing the current monthly salary ceiling of $5,000 to reflect longer term wage increases of our middle-income group.
Lastly, women from the Pioneer Generation were largely homemakers and have little or no CPF savings. They have contributed significantly towards the nation by having more children and raising their families. Those below 80 years, who qualify for subsidised MediShield Life premiums, may not even have the means to afford to pay for the balance. Can the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that they are covered by MediShield Life through further assistance and support?
Mdm Speaker, \"CPF no enough\". Minister, please explore other options before CPF cuts in future downturns so that workers' savings for housing, medical and retirement will not be affected.
Moving on to the concerns for the women and family. As Singapore moves away from dependence on a foreign workforce, it is vital to cultivate a family-friendly workplace. Companies must recognise that by meeting the work-life needs of employees, they will be able to improve their staff turnover rates which eventually translate into cost savings. But more can definitely be done to improve the work-life balance. The labour movement has been actively lobbying for more initiatives and I would like to raise six suggestions for your consideration.
Firstly, protection for women employees going through childbirth. Can the Minister consider increasing paid maternity leave to six months and up to six months of unpaid maternity leave so that a working mother can take enough time off to care for her newborn child? Can they be protected from being penalised for devoting time and energy to childcare? They should be allowed to return to the same job at the same pay at the end of their maternity leave. In the UK, besides the policy of returning to the same job at the same pay after maternity leave, should the employer show that the job no longer exists, the
Page: 101
mother must be offered alternative job with similar terms and conditions.
Secondly, protection through creating a culture supportive of procreation and caregiving. With a declining birth rate and ageing population, there have been campaigns, advocacy and even laws enacted to encourage childbirth and the care for our elderly. It is important to provide a workplace culture supportive of procreation and caregiving so that mothers and/or caregivers can continue to be active in the workforce.
Other than infrastructure, such as childcare and eldercare centres, it is vital that employers offer flexi-work arrangements. This will ensure that employees need not have to live with the dilemma of choosing between caregiving or pursuing their careers. Will the Minister consider advocating the Right to Request FWA by employees, which does not automatically ensure that the employee is given FWA, but commits the employer to give due consideration to the request for flexibility?
Thirdly, protection for children of working single mums. Single unwed mothers are often faced with the burden of being the sole breadwinner and their children already started off disadvantaged. Can the Government extend the benefit of the Baby Bonus to working single mums so their children can benefit equally with other children? Can the Government consider this stance for the sake of the child?
Fourthly, more resources should be allocated for Back2Work With U Programmes. If we are to keep growing our economy, it is important that enough resources are put into encouraging and helping stay-home moms who wish to return to the workforce. Programmes, such as the Back2Work With U by NTUC WDS, specifically help place women back into the workforce by reaching out to them, providing them with training and advocating better work-life harmony so that they can better manage work and family care. The joint effort from e2i and the Labour Movement showed a marked increment in the number of women returning to the workforce. As of November last year, they have successfully placed about 23,000 women back to the workforce. While we applaud these efforts, they are merely the tip of the iceberg and more of such successful and targeted initiatives should be introduced to encourage and help the remaining women to return to work and be a part of the Singaporean Core workforce.
Fifthly, progression for women. While women are given opportunities for training and career development at the workplace, it is not uncommon for them
Page: 102
to turn them down. This is because women are tasked with being the main caregiver in most families and it is harder for them to take on training and development after their working hours. The solution may be as simple as further development of working mothers through e-training resources which are currently lacking.
Lastly, privileges for working mothers. Can the Government consider expanding the criteria for Foreign Maid Levy? According to MOM, at the end of 2010, there were slightly above 200,000 female domestic workers in Singapore. That is equivalent to about one domestic helper for every five households. The current maid levy is $265 per month and the Government offers a concessionary rate of $120 per month to Singaporeans with young children below 12. If we want to encourage more women to leave home to work or remain in the workforce, can we expand the criteria? Since mothers with older children still have the main duties of taking care of their children, can the concession rate criteria be extended to working mothers with children under the age of 14 instead of 12?
Moving on to tripartism. Mdm Speaker, in my first Budget debate, I reiterated the point made by Prime Minister during the NTUC National Delegates Conference in 2011, that \"Tripartism is our national treasure\". This is, indeed, true and we have also seen \"Tripartism for All\" at work, with the most recent examples of consensus among tripartite partners on Progressive Wage Model which was adopted by the Government in the licensing for our cleaners who can now earn at least S$1,000 a month. I look forward to the recommendation of the Security Tripartite Committee to level up to the Progressive Wage Model. I would like to applaud these initiatives that help our low-wage workers, all through proactive pervasive tripartism where negotiations take place between Government representatives, employers and the unions.
There are various other sectors where the spirit of tripartism can be improved. Open communication is essential in ensuring that policies cascaded from the national level are not misunderstood.
I would like to applaud LTA for taking the bold step of introducing the Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF). The scheme aimed to improve the transport system in Singapore, to solve the overcrowding issues and transport delays. These are good initiatives that benefit the nation and economy as a whole, but when introducing these programmes, Government agencies and employers should also take the operational viability of our Bus Captains into
Page: 103
consideration.
These transport initiatives are a step towards enhancing the commuters' experience, but what about the experience of Bus Captains? These initiatives may be misunderstood by the workers that they have to drive faster in order to meet the requirements set by the various agencies. It would then be prudent for the Government agencies and employers to actively engage unions before the introduction of any new policies as they inadvertently affect our workers. These policy changes affect more than 7,000 Bus Captains from SBS Transit and SMRT. The unions and Bus Captains are on the ground and are able to provide feedback on the operational viability of these schemes and perhaps even offer better solutions.
Tripartite consultation can be seen in full effect prior to the passing of the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) Bill, where there were a total of 20 Tripartite Working Group official discussions and numerous smaller scale meetings and deliberations with various stakeholders over the course of the last seven years to prepare Singapore for the MLC implementation. Of course, not all policies need years to be implemented, but the main point is that all stakeholders, heavily affected by policy changes, were in consultation to ensure any difficulties for any parties were mitigated before the introduction of the policies.
Such a concerted effort has resulted in a Bill that the stakeholders feel invested in and, therefore, can easily uphold, as their viewpoint is heard.
Efforts like this must be viewed as necessary and serve as a model for all policy making. Ministries and Statutory Boards should lead the way and develop KPIs for their staff and officers in fostering good industrial relations within the tripartite framework.
Mdm Speaker, I would like, therefore, to call on all parties to \"walk the talk of tripartism\" in the spirit of what our Prime Minister calls our National Treasure and work towards greater partnership and communication between all Government agencies, employers and unions so as to achieve pervasive tripartism.
FinalIy, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister once again for introducing this new raft of measures and initiatives in Budget 2014 for our businesses and Singaporeans. I hope that we can streamline the application processes for these funding initiatives and subsidies, so that it will be easier to access them, or it would have defeated the purpose and the spirit with which they were
Page: 104
introduced. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Madam, I support the 2014 Budget to encourage quality growth in the economy and build a fair and equitable society. With rising global competition and a fast-ageing population in Singapore, we must make strategic shifts to develop competitive niches for our economy and companies. At the same time, the changing age and income profile of our population will pose new challenges to our society to remain cohesive, compassionate and resilient. We need to do more to bring the hearts of Singaporeans together so that we can live in peace and harmony.
Supporting SMEs. Madam, the Finance Minister highlighted that quality growth will be based on innovation and building deeper capabilities. But there is no mention of the strategic directions or focus areas of Singapore's economy in the next few years.
Many businesses, especially SMEs, are looking to the Government to provide strategic guidance as to where our economy is heading. This will help them to invest and build capabilities to seize new business opportunities. Feedback from many SMEs is that they are willing to upgrade their business operations but they need to know the future road map of our economy.
Thus, I would suggest to the Finance Minister to organise closed door business dialogue sessions to share his strategic insights of our economy with local firms, especially the SMEs. These sessions can be organised based on industry clusters so that Singapore firms can understand the Government's economic strategy and upgrade their businesses to complement the Government's efforts in strengthening our competitiveness.
Madam, I support the creation of new industrial spaces that cluster companies can co-locate and share facilities, such as logistics support and ICT infrastructure. However, there are some barriers for existing SMEs to move to these new industrial spaces. First, it is costly to move, and secondly, moving office may result in staff turnover, especially if the new workplace is not conveniently located.
Thus, I would like to propose to the Finance Minister to consider incentivising promising SMEs to take up the cluster companies' industrial space.
Page: 105
Such industrial spaces should be built by JTC and let out to local SMEs under a special industry clustering scheme at affordable rental.
Madam, I understand that it is very competitive to attract foreign investments to Singapore. But the types of investment and firms we attract will have a direct impact on the supporting industries in Singapore. Many of our 170,000 local SMEs are capable of providing support to these new investors. But the SMEs need the assistance of EDB or SPRING Singapore to help them market their products and services to these new investors. EDB can also incentivise new investors to support local SMEs.
To further nurture quality growth of our firms through quality products and services, EDB and IE Singapore should provide more support to brand the products and services of local firms both locally and overseas. More can be done to promote the \"Made in Singapore\" brands or the \"Excellent Quality\" services of local firms.
Raising the productivity of the construction industry. Madam, I agree with the Finance Minister that we need to adopt upstream measures to improve construction productivity. But I am concerned about the effectiveness of some of the measures proposed, such as mandating the use of prefabricated volumetric construction and prefabricated toilets. These prefabricated technologies were used in Singapore before, and had failed, resulting in extensive follow-up repair works.
Madam, to further boost construction productivity, we should consider more standardisation of the prefabrication of building components, and mandate standardised prefabricated designs into the BCA's buildability and constructability scores.
Madam, there are three key attributes of standardised prefabricated designs that will improve productivity and quality. First, simplicity in prefabricated design. Prefabricated building components, such as walls, columns, beams, floors, staircases, bin chutes and so on should be simple and functional in their designs. Second, standardisation in dimensions. The sizes and dimensions of prefabricated components should be standardised or in modular dimensions to facilitate production and installation. Third, repetition of prefabricated component designs. The design of the prefabricated components must be repetitive so as to enjoy economies of scale and reduce costs.
Page: 106
For example, the Pinnacle@Duxton Plain was essentially built using standardised design prefabricated building components. This had resulted in economies of scale in the manufacturing of the prefabricated building components and improved the constructability of the project.
Madam, as for Government construction projects, we should adopt simplicity in design, standardisation of building components, and repetitive design of prefabrication components to further increase the buildability and constructability of public projects. In addition, I would propose that we add a \"Maintainability\" score into the BCA scoring system to ensure that maintainable designs and building materials are used to reduce the maintenance cost of public buildings.
As for private projects, granting additional Gross Floor Area for higher buildability and constructability scores will definitely incentivise developers to boost construction productivity.
Madam, the construction industry welcomes the extension of the maximum period of employment for R1 Work Permit holders from 18 to 22 years. The retention of more experienced skilled workers will boost productivity and quality. I understand that the imposition of maximum employment period is to prevent entrenchment of foreign workers in Singapore. But this requirement has become irrelevant when we allow foreign workers to work 22 years in Singapore.
To provide more flexibility for contractors to build a core team of skilled and experienced foreign workers, I would urge the Finance Minister to consider removing the maximum period for R1 skilled workers in the construction and process industry. We should encourage firms to take ownership to nurture and retain these skilled foreign workers in their companies to further boost productivity and quality.
Building social capital and resilience. Madam, I support the measures proposed by the Finance Minister to build a fair and equitable society although I know it is difficult to define what is fair and equitable in a society. Nevertheless, efforts by the Government to bring Singaporeans together through measures, such as helping lower income groups, recognition of our Pioneer Generation, and providing equal opportunities for all to do well in life are a step in the right direction.
Page: 107
To further strengthen the social fabric of our society and build resilience in our people, I would like to propose the following for the Finance Minister to consider.
One, more support for the Pioneer Generation. Madam, I wish to call on all stakeholders of Singapore and, in particular, companies, charities, community groups, clans and associations, to show their gratitude to our Pioneer Generation. The Government has taken the lead to recognise the contributions of our pioneers by introducing a $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package or PG Package. I hope this will encourage more stakeholders of our society to initiate other gestures or tokens of appreciation for our pioneers.
Madam, the PG Package has received positive feedback from many Singaporeans, both young and old. It has addressed the key concern on healthcare cost faced by the elderly. However, some pioneers feel that they should be issued the Blue CHAS card immediately so that they can benefit from the subsidy and reduce their healthcare cost burden. Although the PG Package provides peace of mind to the pioneers, it does not encourage them to stay active and healthy. In this regard, I would urge all stakeholders of Singapore to show their gratitude to the pioneers by providing incentives to keep them active and healthy. These incentives can be higher discounts for bus and train rides, free entry to tourist attractions or express queue for pioneers. Such gestures will further strengthen our sense of gratitude to our pioneers.
Two, support for social defence. Madam, the concept of Total Defence was introduced in 1984 to ensure that Singaporeans are prepared to deal with all forms of attacks, both military and non-military. The recent social unrest, riots, terrorist and military threats in Asia have reminded us that we should build our Total Defence capabilities.
Unfortunately, not many Singaporeans pay much attention to Total Defence. A test conducted by the Home Team a few years ago showed that Singaporeans are not vigilant against terrorist threats in our society. This is a real concern which both the Government and our people must address.
Madam, there are five aspects of Total Defence, namely, psychological defence, social defence, economic defence, civil defence and military defence. While it is clear that the Government, Economic Development Board, Home Team and Singapore Armed Forces are key drivers of psychological, economic, civil and military defence respectively, there is no key driver for social defence.
Page: 108
Madam, social defence is about having Singaporeans of all races and religions living and working together in harmony and getting them to look out for one another. To build strong social defence, we must promote mutual understanding and respect among our people and bridge all social divides in our society. Today, Singaporeans are facing various social divides, namely, (a) racial divide, (b) religious divide, (c) income and wealth divide, (d) age divide, and (e) cosmopolitan and heartlanders divide.
Madam, the Community Development Councils (CDCs) were established in 1997 to build a cohesive, compassionate and harmonious community. The key role of the CDCs is to strengthen the \"heartware\" of Singaporeans. Heartware includes our concern for one another, getting more able Singaporeans to help the less abled, our collective will as a people and the sense of belonging to the same family. Developing \"heartware\" is a never-ending process. But it will always strengthen our social defence to cope with all attacks.
Madam, over the last 17 years, the CDCs have built capabilities and developed strong partnerships with many community stakeholders. These include grassroots organisations, VWOs, NGOs, corporate companies, religious organisations, community-based groups and Government agencies. The CDCs have developed or established a niche as the key driver for 3Ps partnerships in community development work.
Community development work strengthens social defence. Social defence against economic insecurity, for example, providing SMEs and social assistance services; food insecurity, such as setting up community gardens where residents can grow vegetables; health insecurity, such as responding to outbreak of disease during crisis or in peace time; promoting healthy lifestyle activities to build trust among our people or environmental insecurity, such as promoting community ownership in water and energy conservation. These are things which the CDCs are championing at the local community.
Therefore, I would like to propose to the Government to consider appointing the CDC as the key driver to build the social defence capabilities of our people and society. Through the wide range of activities, programmes and services organised, the CDCs can play a vital role in bringing Singaporeans of all backgrounds together as one people.
In this regard, I would like to request the Finance Minister to consider revising the funding support for CDCs. The CDC resident and matching grants were not revised since 1997. It is timely for the Government to consider
Page: 109
allocating more resources to build social defence. As building social defence capabilities is a long-term process, I would propose that the Finance Minister to consider setting up a \"Social Defence Endowment Fund\" so that proceeds of this fund can be channelled to the CDCs yearly to champion social defence capabilities, buildings and programmes.
Madam, we need a champion for social defence to build a strong, cohesive and resilient society.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, six months ago, I had intended to stand up and do what appeared to be an audacious thing at that time – I wanted to ask the Finance Minister for $2 billion to spend on the elderly. I thought it was a large sum of money, but I knew it was sorely needed because of our ageing population.
Of course, today, even as I am standing here, I feel I really ought to be sitting down – because $8 billion have already been set aside to be given out. Indeed, this $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package is filial piety of a new order – that of nation and citizens doing the right thing for our pioneers and elders.
Today, I stand here not because I think $8 billion is not enough but because I think we ought to change the way we fund the Government and Government activities.
Today, I want to make the argument that we need a new model of Government. A model that requires us to (a) think short term; (b) to think less and fund more; and (c) to set up a PIC fund for the people sector.
First, I stand because I urge a review of our time-cherished virtues. It has become common to cast the failures of Singapore policymaking as a failing of the Politics-Policy divide. Some critics say our politicians are more technocrats, with little appreciation of the mud and messiness of politics. Politicians, in turn, have defended their actions with the sanctimony that they are \"doing what is right, not what is popular.\"
I argue that both sides may be right, because they are speaking of the same thing – a larger cognitive bias that they call \"hyperopia\" or extremely long-term thinking. Psychologists show the cost of long-term thinking this way: people suffer short-term regret when they choose pleasure over work but, from a
Page: 110
longer-term perspective, the deeper and more severe regret is suffered at passed-up opportunities for pleasure.
The common tale is told that at one's death bed, it is about spending more time with family rather than at work – but what about taking a day off to go deep-sea fishing or scuba diving? What about taking the train across the trans-Siberian railway when you are 21 and full of energy? I must clarify that I have not done any of the above. The lesson? Do not deny yourself small and immediate pleasures to a degree that you will regret for life.
For years, Singapore has practised hyperopia as a virtue. We say – Singapore takes the long-term view. \"Long-term thinking and planning\" has long been a placeholder for good policy making. And, indeed, it was. But in Singapore today, with most basic policy goals in housing, education and health fulfilled, it can be a weakness – it robs our policymaking of the heat and emotion that inform the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Take our reserves, for example. Any suggestion on the use of reserves elicits a knee-jerk reaction – this carefully built-up nest egg can be frittered away with one or two election terms and must be kept only for a rainy day.
This $8 billion was not taken from our reserves. Indeed, our fiscal position is so strong that even with this $8 billion, we are running what can be said to be a balanced Budget. But is balance always a good thing? Is the impending demographic change not rainy enough for us to run into deficit?
Madam, I am not suggesting that, not today anyway. Today, I would just like to ask the Finance Minister to consider the short term; aside from the $8 billion, think about what else is needed, and take the additional funds from the reserves and spend it on taking care of the Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans.
Eight billion dollars for those needy among the 450,000 elderly Singaporeans does not buy luxury or even comfort but, indeed, and importantly, it provides peace of mind. The peace that comes with the knowledge that we, as a collective community, want to give them as good a life for as long as possible.
I know that the Finance Minister's Budgets over the past few years have seen many incremental increases in social spending, but we think of this as mainly \"investment\", such as on education.
Page: 111
Also, we have used our reserves some 55 times over the past 10 years, but they were on investments and funding asset development. The only real drawdown was in 2009, when $4.9 billion was used to help workers and fund other social schemes in the light of Singapore's worst recession since Independence. All the money was put back within three years. So, this was considered a \"good\" use of money. But why?
A wholly political approach is wrong. But so, too, is a wholly rational one.
My point here is not about public finance or neo-liberalism but, rather, a more straight-forward one about long-term planning.
Long-term thinking and planning does have its place. But in today's Singapore, the next lap is, perhaps, the most difficult to take. In health, education, transport and housing, there is increasing contestation not just in the ways and means of achieving goals, but in the very nature of goals themselves. Take, for example, the role of our national Universities.
One of my colleagues, who has a daughter studying at the National University of Singapore, told me how rare it was for his daughter to hear a Singaporean accent when being taught by NUS professors. I was actually ready to dismiss the claims but, then, I heard it again – this time, from a student at NTU.
So, through Parliament, I asked MOE for some figures. I found out in the Political Science Department of NUS, 28% of the 25 faculty members are Singaporeans. In NTU's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 41% of the 29 faculty members are Singaporeans. In the NTU Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information, 44% of the 48 faculty members are Singaporeans. And in the NUS Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 46% of the 82 faculty members are Singaporeans.
I do not know what the international norms are – MOE does not have comparable figures for UK and US universities. I agree that our Universities need to be competitive and internationally well recognised. I know that in our Universities, as in other professions, there needs to be open competition. But the percentages are surely astonishing – only a bit more than one quarter of the professors at the Political Science Department in NUS are Singaporeans!
Madam, I do not say that we need to hire Singaporeans only, or that we ought to practise affirmative action. This will be an insult to the many great
Page: 112
Singaporean minds in our Universities today.
But after looking at the numbers – and, of course, these are numbers in particular departments – I thought, perhaps, we ought to have a look at what is going on. Again, I must qualify that these are the numbers only for particular departments – the rest of NUS may, indeed, be awash with pink ICs.
Madam, I know that we had looked at the long term – we aim to be internationally competitive, we aim for a high spot in the rankings, we aim for top-class research. But look at the here and now.
In Political Science, Communications and Public Policy, some of the most important and context-sensitive fields of endeavour in any country, less than half of the faculty are Singaporeans.
Hyperopia is not a fatal flaw; neither is long-term planning an unchanging virtue.
Let us take both long and short term into account. What is the big picture? What is this country that we are building? Our Universities – what are they for? Who are they for?
And these questions, of course, lead to a more general one – what is the good life for all of us here on this island?
From universities, I want to move to the poor of Singapore. It is true that there are many schemes to help; it is also true that quite a few of these schemes are under-utilised. The solution is not more social workers to help with the form filling, but to require fewer forms and more seamless and coordinated delivery of social services.
That requires a fundamental shift in the thinking on welfarism. And to do that requires an even more fundamental shift on what counts as a \"sustainable\" policy. Madam, I will say more on this in my cuts on MSF and MCCY.
But I want to say here that, for a start, 5% of the MCCY budget should be open to the people sector within a broad set of goals. There are two reasons to take this radical approach.
Page: 113
First, given our strengths, the community bonds, the relatively high level of education, we are in a good position to undertake this.
Second, given the fast rate of change, operationally, it makes better sense for a decentralised highly autonomous operation. This is the new model of policy-making I have in mind. We need to plan less and allow the people to do more.
We also need to fund more.
We have the old demon of Western liberal democracies, spending on populist welfare programmes and funding these with high taxes or high debt. We have been successful over the past four decades by advocating work over welfare.
But I think we have also seen that prosperity is not a tide that floats all boats equally. Some of our countrymen are stuck in increasing poverty and many of these are the elderly first generation now in their 70s and 80s.
It would be a cheap shot to refer to the cardboard collectors, the tissue sellers and the elderly cleaners we see in coffee shops. We know that there is a need to get used to the idea that we have to work for longer. But for many of us today, well educated, well trained, this work is a choice and part of a meaningful life.
For the elderly today, work can be grinding and back-breaking.
I am realistic enough to know that we cannot make welfare so comprehensive that no work is needed – but I just want to make it a little less hard. To make life a little more bearable, a little more meaningful – and freer from the condemnation of poverty and bad luck.
Madam, in conclusion, I want to bring us back to why we ought to rethink our Budget going forward.
For years, Singaporeans have been socialised to think long term, tighten our belts, make sacrifices and defer consumption. It has created an existentialist gene in our national psyche – not altogether a bad thing for a small country less than half a century old.
Page: 114
But, perhaps, it is time to take in the counter-narrative. Let us not sacrifice too much for the long term, and regret 50 years later that we did not do enough or we did not do the right thing at the right time.
Second, it is time to let go of the technocratic, big planning model of Government. The insulation of planners and civil servants from political pressures is a model that has operated for a long time in Singapore.
But I have argued that we need now a messier, more negotiated process. We want to change fast and in many directions at the same time. True there are down sides – but I believe that there are also many upsides. An under-appreciated point is that such a politically-informed process results in superior outcomes and greater legitimacy.
So, in short, it is time for the Government to grow both bigger and smaller. In the 1980s, two-thirds of our healthcare spending came from the Government. Today, it is one-third although, obviously, the quantum has increased significantly.
Perhaps, it is time to relook this balance. Government also needs to grow bigger because the world is becoming smaller – trade blocs are changing, alliances are being formed, the polar ice caps are melting and new sea routes are opened up. Climate change, terrorism threats – online and offline – all these require a strong Government.
But Government also needs to be smaller – we cannot make all the decisions, we should not make so many plans.
We ought to let people and the community step up and decide what they want for themselves. We must say, \"Hey, look, we may not know everything. We may not know which is the best way to care for the elderly living in this block; we may not know how to get them to be less depressed. We may not know if homecare works better, or day care centres. We may not know which is the best model.\"
We should become smaller because we need to see that, today, we are a country where the community itself is rich – rich in ideas, in expertise, in heart.
I will give an example. There is a doctor, who is sort of a wandering saint in Singapore. He practises very good medicine but only when he is paid very little or not paid at all. His name is Tan Lai Yong, and he teaches at NUS. The
Page: 115
course is called \"Hidden Communities\" which is a very suitable name because he sees all those things in Singapore which are hidden to us.
He treats migrant workers for free, he brings students to visit prostitutes in Geylang and help them, and to Jurong Fishery Port in the middle of the night.
He works with kids from broken homes, but not to give them tuition or anything useful like that. He buses them to NUS, and lets them eat in the NUS dining hall with some homeschooled kids and then buses them back.
He does very oddball things, which a normal policymaker will not do. I do not know his boss but I can imagine that she has a very complex set of KPIs for him.
This is a man that I will give $1 million to. Not because he can write a fine proposal, not just because he has a good track record, but because he has a weird and wonderful mind and heart.
To many people, Tan Lai Yong, who spent 15 years in Yunnan treating the poor and training village doctors, is poor. He has no car, no house, not a HDB flat to his name. But he is one of the richest men I know. He has friends from the villages of China to the ghettos of India. He is rich in ideas, strong of heart and boundless in energy.
There are many like him in Singapore – in our Universities, banks, mosques, temples, churches, many places. And in that sense, Singapore is rich and the Government needs to be small. We need to give our men and women more space, more policy space and more financial resources to help us take the next step for Singapore.
Perhaps, it is all in the language because in his speech, Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister spoke about how individual players show what is possible – from a security company using cameras to a menswear retailer. He encourages this innovation and funds it with the PIC.
What about raising productivity in the people sector as well? Of course, in business productivity, we can use economic measures.
In the people sector, we can use social indicators – the number of people in need, the improved living conditions, the lower dropout rates in school and
Page: 116
some qualitative measurement, such as satisfaction with the community.
In the private sector, we have the PIC scheme. For the people sector, we do not have many of such schemes.
On improving productivity, the Minister for Finance announced that the PIC scheme, due to expire in 2015, will be extended another three years and this extension will cost the Government $3.6 billion.
I am not asking for $3 billion for the people sector, but I do want to start, perhaps, with $100 million, 5% from the MCCY budget – and I will find you 100 Tan Lai Yongs to spend it well and carefully.
Today, I have asked the House to consider a new model of Government and budgeting. We move from the model of a paternalistic, lean Government, where many of the decisions and ideas came from the Government, to one where the Government has a bigger role in funding, but a smaller one in deciding where the money should go.
This is a more liberal, stronger Government. This new model is a model for our time; it matches the profile of our people and our country's budget position today.
It is a model for a stable, vibrant country, onwards to tomorrow, to our better selves, to a bigger, more prosperous Singapore. It is a model that allows us to offer a hand out to our fellow Singaporeans, and an eye on the wider horizon beyond. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, when things go wrong or something bad happens, many are very fast to point fingers or pin the blame on one another. On the other hand, when things go right, when something wonderful happens, many are also very fast to claim credit.
Budget 2014 is a generous one by all means and that is the reason why so many Members and parties claim credit straightaway that the Budget is due to all of them. This Budget lightens the burden for Singaporean families by providing more support for preschool education for the young and elderly medical needs. The star in this Budget must be the $8 billion Pioneer Generation
Page: 117
Package. The Government has said that this $8 billion will be provided for in this Budget and will not tax the future generations. Many of the residents I spoke to were wondering where is the money coming from. If we can do it this year, why can we not do this earlier? Why can we not provide more of such packages in the future?
I was at Istana attending an official function last week, and during the function, I met a member of the President's Council of Advisors. We spoke, we chatted about the Budget and I asked him what he thinks of the Budget. I was surprised by his reply when he asked me whether I realised that this Government has been spending more money than what the Government collects annually for the last five years. I replied how can that be, because the Government has announced surpluses year after year. And his simple reply to me was: \"This is because the Government's coffer is kept positive by the 50% Net Investment Income (NII) from our national reserves annually. Without the NII, the Government is in deficit.\"
I was concerned and when I went back to check all the numbers again, I found that he was right. Many do not realise that the Government is collecting less than what it is spending. I am just concerned with the current Government's fiscal position: will this trend of deficit without the 50% from NII be sustainable? Will the Government need to raise taxes, either direct or indirect, in the near future, to fund our increasing social needs due to our ageing population? What is the health of our national Reserve, our \"goose?\" And how does the annual drawing of this 50% affect our national reserves? Is our \"goose\" getting fatter or getting thinner? Are our national reserves growing when we take into account inflation over the last five years?
The Pioneer Generation Package is a unique one. And I am very surprised as it promises lifelong benefits. How sure is the Government that this $8 billion is sufficient? What if there is a new medical breakthrough that can prolong life for our elderly significantly in our near future? Or there is a significant drop in our economy and weakening of our currency in the future, resulting in a decrease in the value of this $8 billion that we put in. Will the future Government put in money to honour what this Government has promised, especially if there is a change in Government? These were the pondering questions that my residents were asking me as well.
One of the key focuses of this year's Budget is medical. The Government will increase medical subsidy to Outpatient Clinics (OPDs). The Pioneer Generation Package also promises more subsidies on top of that. While I fully support the proposed increase in medical subsidy, I am concerned whether we
Page: 118
have the capacity in our current Outpatient Clinics (OPDs), in our Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) as well as hospitals, to cater for this anticipated increase in demand when the plans are rolled out. Deep in people's minds are very crowded polyclinics, long waiting time at the Specialist Centres, hospitals with tentage where they may have to put overflowing patients or put patients along the corridors.
With this current package coming in, will there still be long waiting queues? Can the hospitals really take on this additional load? What is the point of promising more medical subsidy if there is no capacity in the Government healthcare sector?
I was very happy a few years ago when the Government announced an increase in childcare subsidy. But my residents in Sembawang did not enjoy much as there were very limited childcare facilities in the estate. Many childcare centres have waiting queues of more than 200. What is the point of having more subsidies if there is no way for the residents to enjoy them? I simply hope that many of my residents will enjoy this higher medical subsidy when the need arises and not to be burdened by this long waiting time at the OPDs as well as SOCs.
What is the Government doing to increase the capacity at the SOCs and the hospitals to handle this increase in workload? Will the Government consider including or extending the plan to rent the private healthcare sector space to provide healthcare for this anticipated increase?
Many also complain that the Government gives out in one hand and takes back with the other. There have been many examples whereby when you increase childcare subsidy on one hand, the childcare operators will increase the fees straightaway, by the next month. There have also been fears whether there will be a significant increase in medical consultation fees, investigations and treatment charges in the Government hospitals, SOCs and OPDs. As we have seen, over the past few years, there is a significant increase. There is really no point to increase medical subsidy when it is followed shortly by an increase in medical fees. I certainly hope that the Government can do something about it and freeze any increase for a short period of time or put in certain measures to control any increase in the future.
Apart from medical, I would like to propose that the Government honour our Pioneer Generation by other measures which I think they would like to use. This is one measure I hope that they do not need to use – hospitalisation. The
Page: 119
other measures are to keep them healthy and active. For example, the Government can offer them (a) free entry to use public swimming pools and gyms that are operated by Singapore Sports Council; (b) the Government can also offer a higher discount or free entry to our national attractions, including the zoo, the bird park, museums and other national attractions. After all, it is the Pioneer Generation that built all these for us.
I hope that the private sector will also follow suit and join the Government in honouring our Pioneer Generations (PGs) by offering free services and generous discounts to our Pioneer Generation as it reflects the values of the entire society. Will the Government issue a Pioneer Generation card to this group so that they can be easily identified to receive such privileges even from the private sector?
There is one group among the Pioneer Generations that has been complaining that they have not had significant benefits from the PG Package that was announced. They are the dwindling group of the Civil Service (CS) card holders, comprising retired teachers, policemen, soldiers and civil servants. They, too, have contributed to our nation-building significantly. They did not benefit from the CPF scheme that was implemented earlier on because they were under the old scheme. Although they enjoyed free medical care through their CSC cards, but I felt that they also should deserve some form of benefit from this PG Package that had just been announced. Their pensions have been updated from time to time. However, they do not keep pace with the increase in the cost of living as well as inflation. Perhaps, the Government can consider increasing pension payouts for this group.
The last point I wish to touch on for this Budget is the Green Focus. Year after year, I speak about the Green Focus. I am happy that, this time round, the Government has extended the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle scheme to June 2015. We have mooted in this House to have green car COE, but the problem is the definition of a green car. I certainly hope that the Government can still consider the suggestion of a low carbon emission COE. It is a sure way of obtaining buy-in from the population after the expiry of the CEV.
I am also pleased with the early turnover scheme to encourage companies to replace their old commercial diesel vehicles for less pollutive and more fuel-efficient new vehicles. I hope that more will take up this particular scheme and, certainly, it is a concern for our long-term strategy towards a greener Singapore.
Page: 120
In conclusion, Budget 2014 is certainly a good Budget and I would like to express my sincere thanks to many of the men and women who are working quietly behind the scenes in your Ministry who spent days and nights working on this wonderful package for Singaporeans. They are truly the unsung heroes and credit should go to them as well. Once again, thank you, and I support the Budget.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Speaker, in many places, a politician can have some bad habits and get re-elected. In many places, a politician can be considered as not very bright and yet hold very senior positions. Certainly, one does not have to look great or be very healthy to be a successful politician either.
But, Madam, there is one weakness or label that no politician can survive, and this applies to whether the politician needs to win elections or not. This label sticks for a long time and is terribly difficult to remove. It is more often than not, fatal. And it kills the politician slowly and painfully. This dreaded label is none other than \"Out of Touch\".
Out of Touch – before the advent of democracy which permitted peaceful transfers of political power, bloody mutinies and revolutions had taken place in the name of leade rs being out of touch. One such infamous example is the words that Mary Antoinette was purported to have uttered, \"Let them eat cake\". Incidentally, there is no evidence that she ever said these words, which underscores the miasma that diffuses from being labelled \"out of touch\".
And, yet, while the label of being \"out of touch\" is so powerful and permanent, defining a person or an organisation as being out of touch is incredibly nebulous. How does one even define the words \"out of touch\" in politics? It seems to creep up insidiously, envelops, corrodes and eventually devours the politician or public servant. And more often than not, the politician does not even see or feel it coming.
Madam, while we cannot define what \"out of touch\" is, there are many signs and symptoms of a person being out of touch that any politician should guard against.
The obvious sign is a very different behaviour and lifestyle from most other people. You speak differently. You frequent places that 95% of the population
Page: 121
cannot afford or have no access to. You think it is very hard to live on $10,000 a month when most people do not see this kind of money at all. And what is worse, all your friends are like you and think and speak likewise.
And even if you do not do any of the above, your political enemies may still try their level best to portray you as being \"out of touch.\" Once you are branded as such, three things would happen to you.
The first is the impression that you are lacking in empathy. You may be the most hardworking, the most intelligent and the most compassionate person around, but people do not think you can solve their problems as a public servant if you lack empathy. Empathy is different from compassion. Doctors will tell you it takes both compassion and empathy to be a good doctor. Politicians are no different. The people around you do not believe you know how to care even if they believe you want to care for them.
The second deadly wound the label inflicts is that the \"out of touch\" label is often an euphemism for elitism. To quote Emeritus Senior Minister Goh when he spoke at his alma mater, Raffles Institution, on the occasion of receiving the Gryphon Award on 27 July 2013:
\"But when society's brightest and most able think that they made good because they are inherently superior and entitled to their success; when they do not credit their good fortune also to birth and circumstance; when economic inequality gives rise to social immobility and a growing distance between the winners of meritocracy and the masses; and when the winners seek to cement their membership of a social class that is distinct from, exclusive and not representative of Singapore society – that is elitism. And we need to guard against elitism, whether in our schools, public institutions, or in society at large, because it threatens to divide the inclusive society that we seek to build.\"
Madam, in every society, when the divide between the elites and the masses widens, the elites are inevitably seen to be \"out of touch.\" And, often, justifiably so.
And once you are seen to be elitist and lacking in empathy, the third and most pernicious consequence must happen – people around you cannot see themselves having an engaging relationship with you that is based on mutual understanding and respect. Once successfully labelled as \"out of touch\", you are so far away you are practically a lost cause because no real relationship is possible. And without a meaningful relationship, earnest communication is
Page: 122
now also impossible.
In summary, \"out of touch\" will engender the following notions that are fatal to any public figure, and, especially, an elected politician: (a) lacking in empathy; (b) being indirectly branded as elitist; (c) it is not possible to have a relationship based on engagement, mutual respect and understanding between the electorate and you.
Mdm Speaker, please allow me now to talk a little about the paradox of democracy and the franchise of voting. Inherent in the mature democracies is the principle of equality. Everyone has one vote. At the ballot box, one vote from a pauper is as important as one vote by a billionaire. But while such notions of equality exist at the level of the voter, the same cannot be said at the level of the candidates. Voting has always been about selecting those who are perceived to be faster, stronger and smarter, more honest, more sincere and so on, so that those so elected are the ones who are better equipped to govern over the rest.
And yet, paradoxically, while we want to elect the faster, stronger and smarter, we also want these people to be \"one of us\". To be \"one of us\", is the exact opposite of being labelled \"out of touch\". Once you are \"one of us\", you understand me; my problems. You are not elitist. We can have a relationship of engagement based on mutual respect and understanding. To a politician, there is no better balm for political wounds than to be labelled as \"one of us\". Being \"one of us\" covers a multitude of mistakes and sins.
This is an inescapable hard truth of politics. This is especially so in the social media age when the \"power distance\" between leaders and the people shrinks rapidly and the electorate no longer accept their leaders unquestionably as distant figures wielding enormous power.
Madam, as I have said last year at the Budget debates in Parliament, the battle for the hearts and minds of Singaporeans begins at the level of trust. And trust begins when people deep down instinctively know we are not \"them\", but we are one of them.
Since the last general elections, the Government has worked very hard to address shortcomings, perceived or otherwise. There is still much left to be done. At last year's Budget debates, I also urged all of us to listen to the people, to labour for the people and to lead the people.
Page: 123
This year, I urge all of us, especially for those in Government, to avoid the pitfalls of being labelled \"out of touch\" and to strive to be seen by the people as \"one of us\". And the way to do this is not to go to the mountaintop and shout repeatedly \"I am one of you\". But rather, it is through our actions and words, through our humility, sincerity, that people will come to realise we are one of them, one with them and one for them. That is when people will come to know that, yes, we are \"one of us\".
Going beyond politics, as we approach our 50th anniversary as a nation next year, it is also vital that every Singaporean reaffirms that we are \"one of us\". Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Today, I wish to speak on four issues.
First of all, on the timely initiatives that were announced as part of this year's Budget: I wish to speak in particular about two aspects of the Budget – the Pioneer Generation Package and the increased assistance for older workers.
First, it is heartening to see that our Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans is being honoured through the Pioneer Generation Package. This Package ensures that healthcare will be affordable for these Singaporeans who have played a key role in building the safe and economically vibrant Singapore we enjoy today; more so, our elders will be taken care of, especially as they reach their golden years.
The Package will benefit them in the form of Medisave top-ups, MediShield Life premium subsidies, and enhanced healthcare benefits. In addition, all those eligible for the Pioneer Generation Package will be put on the Community Health Assist Scheme and will also be eligible for benefits under the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance scheme. It is estimated that about 450,000 first-generation Singaporeans will benefit from this Package.
Notably, the Pioneer Generation will receive these regardless of income levels and will receive it for the rest of their lives. As a Member of Parliament in the Bukit Timah area, I think this is a very good step in the right direction, regardless of income levels. This exemplifies and reflects the values that we cherish as a Singaporean society and will assure our elderly Singaporeans that
Page: 124
they have not been forgotten, in their golden years.
The introduction of this Package will also assist our younger Singaporeans, as this initiative will help to alleviate the financial concerns of the children and grandchildren of our Pioneer Generation, and will give them peace of mind knowing that their parents and grandparents will be taken care of as they get older.
Also of note is the fact that the Government is setting aside $8 billion for the new Pioneer Generation Fund from the outset to finance the Package. The creation of this dedicated fund will be drawn upon over time to fund the Package and will assure the beneficiaries that these important benefits will not be put in jeopardy by future economic circumstances.
Secondly, beyond the Pioneer Generation Package, the Government has also adopted prudent and incisive measures to take care of the next generation of Singaporeans and to prepare for an ageing population in the future.
In addition to the across-the-board increase in CPF contribution rates for all workers by 1% – to be allocated to the worker's Medisave Account – older workers above the age of 50 will also be eligible to enjoy an added increase in the CPF contribution rates to their Ordinary and Special Accounts.
Further, Singaporeans aged 55 years and above in 2014 will also receive Medisave top-ups of between $100 and $200 annually for the next five years. This will help alleviate healthcare expenses.
Taken together, these measures will enhance the healthcare and retirement savings of older workers, and will ensure that they, too, will have peace of mind knowing that they will be taken care of in the years to come – in their golden years.
The second topic I wish to talk about, Mdm Speaker, is the promotion of adoption.
An economy must have manpower. And our TFR has taken a hit. Therefore, like many of my fellow Members, especially during the last COS, I would like to speak about how we can promote the comforting, loving, nurturing and voluntary alternative choice of adoption to pregnant mothers thinking about
Page: 125
terminating pregnancies.
Many of these women may not be aware of, or might not have thought of the alternative of adoption. I believe that the culture and option of adoption could be publicised more widely, and greater efforts can be made to provide pregnant women with information about the wonderful and voluntary option of adoption. In particular, teenage girls and unwed women who are pregnant should be given the opportunity to learn more about adoption as a comforting and nurturing alternative.
A welcome move was also recently announced by the Minister for Health regarding a proposal to make pre-abortion counselling mandatory for all women seeking to terminate their pregnancy in Singapore.
I hope that these pre-abortion counselling sessions can also be an avenue to provide pregnant mothers with further information about adoption. By understanding the process and the benefits of adoption better, pregnant mothers will be able to make an informed decision.
The promotion of adoption as a comforting, loving and nurturing alternative to abortion could also have the happy result of increasing our TFR, which is low. I have heard stories of Singaporean couples trying hard for a baby for many, many years. They are open to adopting a child. If the option of adoption is publicised more extensively, these Singaporean couples can then adopt and raise the child as a Singaporean.
Ultimately, adoption is a voluntary choice that a pregnant mother has to make and we must do all that we can to support her as she makes an informed choice.
Third, Mdm Speaker, on caring for the vulnerable in our society. There are some in our society who are often forgotten or marginalised. They are often not heard, and it is our responsibility to act as voices for them in society and to advocate for better conditions and treatment for them.
There are two groups of such persons in particular that I wish to highlight today, namely, persons released from prison, and victims of human trafficking and related offences.
First, let me discuss persons who have been recently released from prison. Further efforts are needed to help these vulnerable persons rehabilitate
Page: 126
themselves and eventually reintegrate back into the Singapore community fold.
The Yellow Ribbon Project is but one of the many positive reconciliatory and rehabilitative initiatives that have been adopted to alleviate some of the discrimination and stigma that released persons face today in our society.
However, rehabilitation is only the first step of the long and arduous journey of reintegration back into the community. For rehabilitation to be possible, communities and, on a broader level, society, must do their part to help these released persons to re-engage with the public in a constructive, fulfilling and empowering manner.
One effective way that we can show care and concern for these released persons is to provide opportunities for them to contribute back to the community, and to utilise the skills and abilities that they possess for the betterment of our society. This could include providing opportunities for released persons to be gainfully employed and to make a go for himself or herself in society.
When these released persons are not gainfully employed for extended periods of time, there is the opportunity, time and space for them to gravitate back to old habits and lapse back into the vicious cycle of offending. Therefore, job matching for released persons before their release is essential, and employers should be encouraged to hire qualified and capable released persons who are trying to obtain employment. So, if this is, indeed, going to be an equal and fair and just Budget, perhaps we can also think philosophically. We can also think policy-wise what more we can do to reintegrate our released persons back into our society.
An example of such a programme is the Skills Assistance Subsidy Scheme, administered by the Industrial and Services Co-operative Society, which provides released persons with training to upgrade their skills sets and increase their employability. Examples of common courses that are keenly subscribed to are its Building and Construction Supervisor Safety Course and the course for Class 4 Driving Licence, which is required to operate heavy vehicles like lorries and trucks.
Similarly, more needs to be done to encourage employers to employ released persons who are determined to turn over a new leaf.
Page: 127
Another group of persons that are particularly vulnerable in our society are victims of human trafficking.
In order to protect these victims and potential future victims, there is an urgent need to reduce the prevalence of human trafficking in and through Singapore, through preventive measures, tough laws and victim protection. The most effective means of reducing human trafficking is by preventing the occurrence of human trafficking on and through our shores. This can be done through increasing awareness regarding trafficking-in-persons among Government agencies, corporations operating in Singapore and members of the public.
The early detection of potential TIP cases, through a strong case referral mechanism, will allow for a quicker response to TIP crimes and would minimise the exploitation of TIP victims.
In addition to this, Singapore must adopt stringent laws that will act as deterrence against potential traffickers using Singapore as a destination or transit point for the trafficking of people in the surrounding region.
Additionally, the protection of these TIP victims has been identified at the Singapore Inter-Agency Taskforce on TIP as another key area in the fight against human trafficking in Singapore.
Victim assistance is presently being collectively handled by Government agencies, NGOs and VWOs. These organisations provide a safe environment for the victims of these heinous crimes and provide them with the necessary help that they might require. The Government must continue to support efforts by Government and non-Government organisations to provide avenues for victims of human trafficking to seek protection against harm and to be safely taken care of.
Essentially, a variety of measures must be adopted to provide a holistic approach to the eradication of human trafficking in Singapore. Singapore must continue to take the lead in the region and make it clear that we do not condone this heinous crime of human trafficking within or through our island.
Ultimately, I believe that it is our responsibility as Singaporeans not to forget the last, the lost and the least in our society, and that we must take note of and initiate measures to take care of and watch out for these vulnerable
Page: 128
members of our society.
Lastly, Mdm Speaker, is a topic that I have discussed several times during Budget debates – providing values-based education and more education pathways for our children. It is my firm belief that education is the most important gift that we can give to our children and future generations of Singaporeans. With the right education, Singaporeans will be able to support themselves and their families and will be well placed to make a mark for themselves in society.
Hard work has been put in by the MOE and the Education Service to build a fertile and open learning environment in our schools and educational institutions, be it at the Primary, Secondary or tertiary levels.
To build upon this hard work, I believe that it is important that we inculcate and build an education system that is values-based and committed towards instilling a strong emphasis on character development and strong values.
An example of a programme that would encourage this type of education system is the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) programme, which has been updated and is being re-introduced in our Primary and Secondary schools in stages from this year onwards.
The CCE programme aims to inculcate the importance of values through three overarching ideas, namely, Identity, Relationship and Choices. Through the programme, students will be invited to understand these three key concepts in the context of their self, family, community and beyond.
This programme will allow young Singaporeans to understand the values that define our Singapore society, to show concern for the world that they live in and to be capable of showing compassion and empathy in their relationships with one another and the community-at-large.
It is my hope that a values-based education will provide a more holistic and complete education for our students, and will ensure that they are grounded in strong values.
On top of building and shaping a values-based education system, it is equally important that we have a system that values each and every one of our students. Our education system must be an open and inclusive one that provides multiple and diverse pathways for our students and must be able to
Page: 129
develop the talents and capabilities of each student to their fullest at the right time.
In particular, more educational pathways need to be created to provide opportunites to students from our ITEs to further their studies at our local Polytechnics or, eventually, at the University.
Less than a month ago, this Parliament passed the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) Act – which I debated on also – which was primarily focused on establishing and pioneering new educational pathways for students in our Polytechnics to expand the upgrading opportunities available to them and to enable them to attain industry-relevant degrees in their chosen fields. Similarly, more efforts need to be taken to create similar education pathways from our ITEs, Polytechnic and then to University.
Presently, our ITEs provide a wide variety of courses, ranging from applied and health services, to design and media, and even courses in hospitality. There appears to be alignment between the courses being offered at our ITEs and the courses being offered at the Polytechnics. Therefore, more should and can be done to encourage our ITE students to pursue further education at our local Polytechnics, and even at our local Universities like the SIT.
The quality of education being provided at our ITEs is high. In 2007, ITE won the inaugural global Harvard-IBM Innovations Award in Transforming Government, in recognition of the profound impact that it has made on the lives of Singapore citizens. In 2011, ITE was the first educational institute in Singapore to receive the Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation. Foreign visitors from other countries and governments regularly come to our ITEs to see how they are able to consistently provide high-quality technical and vocational education to their students.
Our ITEs have been pioneers in the provision of consistently high-quality and cutting-edge technical education and relevant vocational training in Singapore – a model that is being replicated and followed around the world.
Therefore, it is my hope that graduates from our ITEs will be given greater opportunities to expand and build on the high-quality education that they have received at ITE, and to learn relevant skills that will put them in good stead for their future careers.
Page: 130
All of these initiatives require prudent fiscal planning and a healthy Budget. I hope consideration can be given by the various Ministries for the initiatives that I have elaborated on in my speech, when the Ministries are planning and rolling out funding within their relevant fields. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget has been described in various glowing terms as generous, caring and rewarding to deserving recipients. Highlighting the give-aways is the Pioneer Generation Package, which many speakers have spoken of – rightfully so. This year's Budget continues the trend of recent Budgets of increasing social spending, in fulfilment of the Government's pledge to strengthen social safety nets, and share the fruits of inclusive growth with others.
What has attracted less attention is a short but significant passage in his Budget speech where the Deputy Prime Minister stressed the importance of self-reliance and the need to balance personal responsibility with collective responsibility. It is this aspect of the Budget that I would like to focus on.
At first blush, the need for every able-bodied Singaporean to work hard to look after himself or herself, and his or her family, is self-evident common sense. Singapore would not be where it is now, transformed from Third world status to First, if the Pioneer Generation had not been self-reliant and not taken personal responsibility for their own well-being.
We have no natural resources to speak of – no oil or gold, no vast land to grow crops, no large labour force to make goods cheaply. We have succeeded through the vision of our leaders and by the sweat of our own brow.
The demographics of our ageing population add to the pressure, where there will be, in the not-too-distant future, fewer and fewer working adults to support the young and elderly. This should point to us having to, at the very least, continue working as hard and avoid resting on our laurels.
Yet, there are some Singaporeans who feel we have already arrived; that the need to work is somehow less than before, perhaps because we can raid the reserves or resort to higher taxation of the better-off; that our wages should go up even without being more productive, by keeping foreigners out of Singapore; that we are all \"entitled\" to more healthcare, more subsidies, more
Page: 131
welfare, without due regard for how these are to be paid for.
Many of those wishing for more benefits to be provided are motivated by a genuine desire to help those who are considered to be in need, or perhaps simply less well-off. However, there is a well-known saying that \"the road to hell is paved with good intentions\". We need to continue to take a long hard look at these wishes to see if we can afford them and whether they take Singapore to where we want to go.
Examples abound of well-intentioned measures that have created disincentives to self-reliance and have impoverished governments. The United Kingdom provides free medical service to all without applying any means test. Anybody, rich or poor, can avail themselves of this largesse. The drain on their National Health Service has led to long waiting times, even for necessary operations, and erratic quality of treatment. Those who feel that subsidy should be given without any form of means testing would be wise to take note of the example in other lands.
The UK's unemployment benefits in the past were generous enough to entice those who could find jobs to stay jobless – the so-called \"unemployment trap\". The United States Medicare system has unfunded liabilities that would make it bankrupt within a matter of decades unless the whole system is overhauled. Despite spending 17% of its GDP on healthcare, the average US citizen arguably gets no better level of medical care than do our citizens at a fraction of their cost.
We have to work hard at our jobs, because nobody owes Singapore a living and we need to inculcate a similar mentality in our children. Otherwise, a dependence mindset where we expect some government agency to step in and take care of us – regardless of whether we can take care of ourselves – will lead ultimately to the breaking down of what has been built so far. We need to work hard so that our nation can continue to grow and have the means to look after those in society who genuinely cannot look after themselves.
We cannot just spend more on social measures by drawing on the reserves, because, one day, even those reserves will run out and what would future generations be saddled with? One just has to look at certain developed countries with generous welfare systems which their governments are deeply in debt for. Their economies are marked by both high taxation and high unemployment. The middle and upper classes pay high taxes and, yet, many young people are out of jobs, as their countries scramble to keep the many
Page: 132
social programmes afloat.
This is the vision for Singapore if we allow good intentions to blind us to the need for our citizens to be self-reliant. Yes, the state should look after those who cannot take care of themselves, but this can only work if all of us strive, in the first place, to look after ourselves.
There has been much talk recently about social equality and how that is somehow lacking in our society. The high Gini coefficient relative to other developed nations is often cited as proof of that. It is, however, more a barometer of income equality, or inequality, and the figures often cited do not take into account various transfers and subsidies, like Workfare.
It is correct that the Government should do more to address disparities in income, and efforts like the progressive wage model for cleaners, the moderation of the foreign workforce and wage increases supported by productivity gains, are steps in the right direction.
But I believe social equality should be based on social mobility – the means by which any Singaporean, with the ability and the application, can create a better life for themselves. It is about equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity is the object of the many scholarship, bursary and other help schemes to enable every child, no matter what their family background, get an education appropriate to his or her abilities. It extends to working adults with little or no skills, or only an intermediate level of education, to enhance their skill levels and achieve higher qualifications, through subsidised retraining programmes.
But these schemes can only take the individual as far as their abilities and diligence can bring them. Put another way, all this assistance can bring everyone to the same starting line but it is not possible, nor desirable, to ensure that they all reach the finishing line at the same time.
In a meritocracy, we have to allow those who can run faster, jump higher, achieve more to do so and reap the rewards for doing so. It is only in this way that our society can attract talent and allow it to blossom, and, in this way, help advance the country as a whole – whether in terms of winning sporting competitions, achieving scientific breakthroughs, creating a hit movie or song,
Page: 133
or simply generating more jobs.
The idea that all should be rewarded equally, no matter what their individual output, was an ideal of communist societies, which is perhaps the very antithesis of the kind of corrupt monarchy of Marie Antoinette that my learned colleague Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke of. They found to their dismay that rather than everyone doing their best no matter what their abilities, everyone was doing their least no matter what their abilities. Individual output became a case of the Lowest Common Denominator. Unsurprisingly, as an economic model, that has steadily fallen out of favour.
We must certainly guard against the politics of elitism. But, equally, we must avoid the politics of envy, where we complain about those who have done well, even when they have properly and legitimately earned it, and try to introduce rules to mandate that all should be equal. It is correct, absolutely correct, that those who have done well should contribute more, and our progressive income and property taxes are aimed in that direction. But we cannot avoid some degree of income disparity if we want to make Singapore a place where talent can bloom, which, ultimately, works to the benefit of all.
When we strive for social equality, our focus should be on equality of opportunity so that children from poor homes are able to obtain an education that fulfils their potential, or adults who have got off to a bad start, are able to upgrade themselves. In this way, anyone can rise higher, no matter what his or her starting point or background is. This is a true democracy; this is a true meritocracy; and what our nation is founded upon.
It is natural for a nation that has developed as much and as fast as Singapore has done, to want to do more for the disadvantaged in society. This is a noble goal which I believe this Government and, indeed, this Budget supports. But we need to remind ourselves that it starts with ourselves, to be self-reliant and take personal responsibility for our well-being. The system will crash if everybody is expecting somebody else or the state to take care of them. We need to guard against a dependence mentality that undermines the work ethic that has brought Singapore thus far and avoid undoing the sterling work of our Pioneer Generation. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Madam, during last year's Budget debate, I shared with this House the concerns of many Singaporeans that they
Page: 134
cannot afford the expensive healthcare when they are older in age or when they are seriously ill. I was thus happy that this year's Budget had generously provided the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP). The PGP seeks to honour those seniors who have contributed to the growth of Singapore and to provide assurance to these pioneers that their healthcare will be taken care of.
More than anything else, this Budget reminds all of us that this is a Government that pays close attention to feedback and will design policies that place the interests of the people of Singapore first. It signals that the Government is compassionate and cares deeply for the people of Singapore.
Much has been said about the PGP. In fact, over the past week, whenever I meet residents or grassroots leaders, and asked them for their views about the Budget, the main thing that was discussed was about the PGP. However, there is a lot more to this year's Budget than the PGP. There are several schemes which aim to help the SMEs adjust to the changing economic landscape. There are more bursaries for students in the institutes of higher learning. And this would ease the financial burden on the lower- and middle-income families. There will also be permanent subsidies for those lower- and middle-income families to help them pay for the premiums for MediShield Life.
For the seniors who are not eligible for the PGP, they still get the Medisave top-up and additional GST Vouchers. For families living in HDB flats, they get U-Save special payment and rebates on their Town Council charges. Persons with special needs are also not forgotten, with enhanced subsidies for EIPIC which caters to children with special needs as well as transport subsidies for the disabled community.
I urge the Government to do more to share with Singaporeans how they will benefit from this year's Budget. It would not be a positive development if Singaporeans do not understand the many benefits which they will receive from the Budget because the debate has been focussed on the PGP.
Mdm Speaker, allow me to raise a few concerns for the Government. First, cost of living. Even as we take care of the Pioneer Generation, the Government should also do its best to manage the increasing cost of living which affects the general public, especially the middle income. Residents who miss out or do not benefit from the PGP are still concerned about healthcare costs for themselves. They worry about the increase in food prices. They worry about high electricity and utilities bills, hikes in waste disposal fees, increased public transport fares, increase in Conservancy and Service Charges, increase in property prices,
Page: 135
which would affect all other consumer prices eventually.
Not everyone wishes to receive benefits from the Government. Many of the middle-income families whom I speak to tell me that they would prefer to support their families without the need to apply for any form of financial assistance. Their concern is that their income increases just will not match the increase in cost of living. This would then adversely affect their ability to provide for their families, allow their loved ones to indulge in a bit of luxuries and still save a bit for a rainy day.
So, I urge the Government to assure this group that their quality of life will improve. The Government will continue to keep a close tab on the cost of living to ensure that the middle income can live their aspirations.
Next, the Government can help to moderate increases in the cost of living by monitoring the various fees charged by agencies and statutory boards. I made the request last year and I repeat my appeal to the Government to consider a moratorium on any increase in rental for Government properties, flats and hawker stalls. Any such increases in rental charges will affect cost of living and they are usually passed on to consumers who have limited choice. Hence, there is an urgent need to ensure that the benefits given by the Government in this Budget are not perceived as being taken away by increases in Government rental, charges or other related fees.
Third, I urge the Government to allocate more resources and funds to Government Ministries to cater more to the disadvantaged segments of society who may be adversely affected by Government policies. For example, can we consider allowing elderly singles to rent a 1-room flat on their own? This may cost the Government more, but this allows some of these elderly residents a better quality of life. Can we also allow divorcees who have to sell their matrimonial property due to divorce to buy a flat quickly without imposing too many restrictions on them? How about unwed mothers who need a flat to live in with their children? Or can we adjust CPF policies to allow seniors who have reached 55 years of age to use their CPF to buy properties without tying up their funds in their Retirement Account? Otherwise, for these seniors who wish to buy a flat, they may have some CPF in their Retirement Account but they have no home. They are then forced to use their cash to pay for rental. Surely, this cannot be the intent of the Government.
For many of these people, they want to stand on their own feet. They want to be independent, which is something that we encourage. But they face difficult,
Page: 136
bureaucratic policies. So, I urge the Government to make adjustments to the policies for this particular group of people so that we can make a difference to their lives.
Going back to the PGP, this group has been defined to be Singaporeans aged 65 years and above in 2014. They have obtained Singapore citizenship before 31 December 1968. However, there may be Singaporeans who obtained their citizenship after 1968, but who have stayed in Singapore for many years. They too have contributed to the growth of Singapore. I ask the Government to consider extending the benefits to any Singaporeans who are 65 years this year and have lived in Singapore for at least the past 40 years, since they would have also contributed to the growth of Singapore during our formative years.
Finally, may I ask the Government whether there are other efforts made to cater to the other needs of the seniors. For example, we need more resources and support and more social workers to help families who have elderly Singaporeans suffering from mental incapacity or dementia. We will need more financial support for daycare centres for the elderly. Will the Government provide adequate funds for improvements to physical infrastructure facilities that cater to the growing number of the elderly? For example, more exercise equipment in the parks for the elderly, or perhaps more lifts at overhead bridges.
Mdm Speaker, this Budget is special because of the huge amount of funds which the Government is spending for one particular programme and one particular group of citizens over their lifetime. Yet, despite the huge amount of cost, the Government has decided to fund it in its entirety in a single financial year, by setting aside $8 billion in the Pioneer Generation Fund. It is the Government's way to assure the Pioneer Generation of its commitment to them and they do not have to worry about the Government changing policy due to changing economic circumstances. I believe that this is a prudent move and I support this move. I also urge the Government to do more to reach out to the eligible PGP seniors who may not be conversant in English and Mandarin so as to better explain the benefits of the PGP to this group of Singaporeans.
Before I close, allow me to touch briefly on the increase in alcohol taxes. I understand the rationale for the Finance Minister's decision to raise taxes on alcohol. But I am disappointed that some retailers have taken advantage of the tax increase to raise the price of beer by more than double the price hike in some instances. In my view, as a consumer advocate, these retailers are taking advantage of the price increase to profit, and this is unfair to consumers. I urge the Competition Commission of Singapore to investigate if there are any coordinated price increases and whether the coordinated increases are anti-
Page: 137
competitive. Madam, I support the Budget.
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, the Pioneer Generation Package is the highlight of this year's Budget and stands out from past Budgets for its target group. It is a meaningful Budget, which I support fully.
This year, the Government prepared a very special package of appreciation for our pioneers who have contributed so much to nation building. It is timely and well-deserved.
Our pioneers are a stoic group. They worked hard in their early years. Those were the times when even our country's very own survival was at stake. It was either swim or sink. Many pioneers were illiterate or had little education. They had placed their fate and future in one of the smallest countries in the world which had almost no natural resources and a shallow history.
It is fitting that our pioneers, 450,000 of them, be given the assurance that they will be taken care of in their golden years. For the elderly, the greatest concern would be healthcare and it is this area which the Government aims to provide the greatest assurance. In the early years when salaries were low, it was difficult for many to accumulate savings and Medisave funds or have the spare cash to purchase health insurance policies. The PGP should provide them with peace of mind.
The PGP also sends a powerful message about our attitude towards our elderly and our values – respect, appreciation and gratitude for our seniors and elderly. This is probably even more important than the financial support.
It is also very meaningful for all the rest of us the younger generations who have benefited from their labour and sacrifices. During Sunday's REACH Facebook Chat on the Budget, netizens appreciated the Budget with words like \"holistic\", \"emphatic\", \"forward looking\" and \"right time with right amount\". Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin now, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the Budget announcement, members of the public were generally appreciative of the sincerity and care that the Government has shown towards the Pioneer
Page: 138
Generation.
During the initial post-Independence period, resources were scarce, yet our pioneers worked hard to contribute to their families, our society and our nation. The Government introduced the Pioneer Generation Package primarily to show their appreciation for these pioneers, not to compensate for inadequacies in our national medical welfare system.
All along, Singaporeans enjoy subsidies when they visit public hospitals and polyclinics to seek treatment, the portion borne by the individual can largely be paid using Medisave or MediShield.
Recently, one of my grassroots leaders, who is more than 70 years old, was hospitalised for 18 days. He is now resting at home. When I visited him, he said all his medical fees have been paid for using Medisave and MediShield, and he did not have to pay any cash.
Even if the funds in the Medisave account are insufficient, even if he is not covered under MediShield, he could still apply for help from the Medifund set up by the Government. There are full-time social workers in both public hospitals and polyclinics to help process the application. According to the Minister for Health, more than 90% of applicants have successfully applied for assistance under Medifund.
In spite of these measures, the notion that \"one is better off dead than sick\" is still very common among the public. During my Meet-the-People sessions, I have come across a few residents who had to sell their flats or who have become indebted in order to pay off their medical bills.
They had to think of ways to come up with the money on their own, as they had not heard of Medifund, neither do they know how to go about applying for assistance. For the individual who is sick and his family, having to endure the pain of illness is already torturous. The fact that they have to worry about the medical bills makes the situation worse.
Now that the Government has introduced the Pioneer Generation Package, it is indeed a timely helping hand. But no matter how good the package is, if our seniors do not understand how they can benefit from it, it is pointless.
Although the Pioneer Generation seniors automatically enjoy subsidised rates when they pay for their medical bills, the subsidies are not physically
Page: 139
tangible to them. As they do not know about or do not understand this package, they will continue to worry about their medical bills, some will choose not to see a doctor and suffer in silence for fear that they cannot afford the medical fees, or to avoid burdening their children.
Seniors from the Pioneer Generation are at least 65 years old, and many of them are not educated. They do not know English or Mandarin, and do not understand current affairs. Last Thursday, I attended a dialect and Mandarin briefing session organised by Lianhe Wanbao at Tampines North Community Centre that seeks to explain how seniors will benefit from the Budget. We also made special arrangements for somebody to explain details of the Pioneer Generation Package in Teochew.
I noticed that it was not easy for the elderly to understand the age-determined tiered subsidy of MediShield Life and how much Medisave top-up they would get according to their age. We need to be patient and explain to them slowly. Even after the briefing session, many of them came to check with us on whether they have understood the package correctly. Once they received confirmation, many went away happy and satisfied.
But just one dialect briefing is not enough. I think the Government can make use of different platforms and occasions to spread this good news to more people.
Last night, I attended the Facebook dialogue session organised by REACH and someone suggested that we could use getai to spread news about the Pioneer Generation Package. Getai is a unique part of our local culture. The Government can consider working with getai organisers and hosts, to spread news of the Pioneer Generation Package more widely, using language and humour that are close to the ground.
In addition, journalist Hong Yi Ting suggested in a Lianhe Zaobao column that we should set up a Pioneer Generation hotline to answer questions from these senior citizens. Most seniors from the Pioneer Generation do not know how to use the computer. The mode of communication that they are most familiar with is still face-to-face interaction. Apart from the four official languages, we should also provide services in major dialects like Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese. This is also a good opportunity to provide employment for retirees and housewives who speak dialect. Their language and the way they communicate would be more appropriate than the explanation of any Government officer. And please do not use the automated voice recording
Page: 140
system for the hotline. Requesting the caller to choose from various options by pressing on a particular number will only make the elderly more confused and frustrated. We can set up dedicated hotline numbers for different dialects. I have even come up with a hotline number for dialect, 1800-1351-1351, meaning to be free from worry for one's entire life in Cantonese.
Besides the Government, grassroots organisations and community groups can also be roped in to explain details of the Pioneer Package to older residents, especially those who live alone. As the younger generation, each and every one of us should also try to understand what the Pioneer Package is about, and explain the details to the seniors in our family so that they will have peace of mind and can enjoy their golden years without worry.
How does one define the Pioneer Generation?
During the Lunar New Year festive season, the Prime Minister announced that those born before 31 December 1949, who became Singapore citizens before 31 December 1986, will enjoy the benefits of the Pioneer Generation Package for the rest of their lifetime. This gift to 450,000 Singaporeans is not only a \"lifetime ang pow\" but also a gift of respect.
Of course, regardless of how you define the Pioneer Generation, there will definitely be some who will miss out on it. The Minister for Finance has made clear that he will set up a committee to look into appeal cases.
Now, I would like to make an appeal on behalf of a group of people. However, I am not trying to lobby for the Pioneer Generation Package for them, as they are too far off from the cut-off date for attaining Singapore citizenship. In actual fact, this group of people have yet to attain citizenship.
As at June 2013, there are 531,200 Permanent Residents in Singapore. About 10% of them have been in Singapore for more than 20 years. Among the 53,000 Permanent Residents, about 8% applied for citizenship but were not successful. So, there are 4,250 individuals who want to be Singaporeans but have been waiting for at least 20 years. I have two residents who are in this situation.
Mdm Chui is a Malaysian who married a Singaporean more than 40 years ago. She has four grown-up children and six grandchildren, all of them are Singapore Citizens, with the exception of Mdm Chui. Last year, her husband passed away and she became worried that her Permanent Resident status will
Page: 141
be revoked and she will be asked to return to Malaysia. She has few relatives or friends in Malaysia because she has sunk her roots in Singapore and lived here for many years.
Mdm Feng is also a Malaysian. She came to Singapore in 1962 but her husband passed away soon after. She became a construction worker and brought up her two children through hard work, and both of them are Singapore Citizens.
Mdm Chui admitted that she was given an offer to take up Singapore citizenship more than 10 years ago but declined it. It is unclear if this is the reason why her subsequent application for citizenship was unsuccessful. Her daughter explained to me that her father had been in prison for more than 10 years at the time and her mother was solely focused on bringing up her four children. So, the matter was delayed for more than 10 years. The story of Mdm Feng is similar. She is a widow who took on a few jobs at the same time, all for the sake of her children. Now that she is retired and old, she is also unable to make economic contributions to Singapore.
To be frank, when Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965, even our founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was unsure if Singapore could survive. At that time, people like Mdm Chui and Mdm Feng were uneducated, not applying for citizenship does not mean that they have no sense of belonging to the nation. After all, Singapore had just attained independence. They were probably not concerned with national matters and were only worried about getting by.
By today's definition, they are not the Pioneer Generation, yet they helped nurture our second generation of nation builders. They may not have glorious achievements, but they have worked hard. Those aged 65 and above this year are among the 4,250 individuals. Although a few thousand is not a large number, the matter is of great concern to them, their children and grandchildren. They just want to live in Singapore with their families with total peace of mind and not have to go through the trouble of applying for a visa when they travel overseas. If they can enjoy medical benefits like other Singapore Citizens, it would be a great help to their children and grandchildren. They are not asking to enjoy the benefits of the Pioneer Generation. All they want is a pink IC and a red passport to spend the rest of their lives here as Singapore citizens.
I appeal to the Government to make an exception and grant these seniors Singapore citizenship as we pay homage to our Pioneer Generation and
Page: 142
celebrate 50 years of nation building next year.
(In English): Next, I would like to move on to MediShield Life. I would like to suggest to MOM and MOH that MediShield Life be run by the Government and not be outsourced to the private sector. MediShield was introduced in 1990 as a basic medical insurance scheme to cover very large hospital bills at the B2 and C Class levels.
In 2005, CPF privatised the more expensive MediShield Plus A and B for A and B1 wards, and for private hospitals. These were restructured as Medisave-approved Integrated Plans. The Government continued to control the basic MediShield which covered at least 60% of Singaporeans.
These changes were implemented to, I quote, \"prevent cherry-picking by private insurers, restore the integrity of the MediShield risk pool, and bring about a more competitive and dynamic private medical insurance market\". The idea then was that greater competition among the private insurers would result in more benefits at affordable premiums for policy holders.
Initially, the privatisation did result in higher annual and lifetime claim limits and lower co-payment at the same or lower premiums for policyholders. However, today, nine years later, the premiums have increased significantly. Policyholders who want to change plans or insurers are stuck – if they change, they will incur heavy penalties, although insurers can change coverage and premiums anytime, subject to MOH's approval.
Recently, MOH had to ask two insurers, AIA and Aviva not to reduce payouts to policyholders for dialysis. AIA reduced the benefits of about 20 end-stage kidney failure patients on dialysis when they were moved to a different health plan. Aviva reduced the payout amounts for dialysis under two of its integrated MediShield plans and raised premiums.
Policyholders were also unsettled and confused by the way the five insurance companies – NTUC Income, Great Eastern, AIA, Prudential and Aviva – set the premiums and coverage of their Integrated Shield Plans. Ms Salma Khalik of The Straits Times has raised the issue of premiums charged for the same ward class differing by more than 100% although they do not correlate with the claimable amounts. In addition, there are big differences in premium increases for people in the same age band and significant variance in coverage for people of the same age group in the same ward class.
Page: 143
Private insurers are accountable to their shareholders; they have less motivation and leeway to assist policyholders who run into problems.
One in eight policyholders dropped out of their MediShield Integrated Plans last year as they were unwilling, unable or neglected to top up their premiums when they exceeded the amount covered by Medisave. Quite a number had crossed age bands and not realising that their premiums had increased, they did not top up the difference in cash. Many of them gave feedback that the insurance companies did not make any effort to contact them personally about their lapses before cancelling their policies.
Private insurers are commercial and they like to promote their policies to MediShield holders. I have heard of cases where policyholders receive so many marketing leaflets that they overshadowed the notices to pay premiums. As a result, the policyholders missed the payment. Their policies lapsed and they had to pay more to be reinstated.
If MediShield Life is administered by the Government, the Government will be in the position to safeguard the interests of the elderly. I am also confident that the Government will be able to manage, grow and protect the funds from the premiums as well as any private insurance fund.
I would like to suggest a central database to help organise MediShield insurance coverage for Singaporeans. It would be even better if the database can be integrated with our hospitals' systems so that patients do not need to have to remember and retrieve their own insurance policies. A nationalised system will be very useful, particularly for patients and their family members in such times of distress.
Last but not least, I want to add the point about the cost of operations. With the Government controlling MediShield Life, there should be economies of scale for the administration of these policies. The profits which could have been made by the private insurers can now be translated into lower premiums for everyone.
Hence, I urge the Government to seriously consider administering MediShield Life. With that, I support the Budget.
Page: 144
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I am glad to know that the Budget this year has built upon the foundation laid down in recent years, increased the Government's expenditure in order to promote the restructuring of our economy, create more job opportunities, strengthen job security and increase our income.
I believe we should persevere in this direction, to restructure our economy, and maintain full employment – a unique advantage of Singapore. In particular, we should ensure that our SMEs, who are the greatest contributors in the labour market, maintain their vibrancy and vitality, so as to continue to create better and more jobs for Singaporeans. Currently, there are 16,000 SMEs in Singapore accounting for more than 50% of GDP and providing jobs to 70% of our workforce. Hence, we must take a serious view of the challenges faced by SMEs in recent years. These challenges are mainly in two areas: firstly, shortage of manpower; secondly, rising business cost.
Since the Government tightened foreign manpower policies two years ago, the shortage of manpower has become a serious problem. In a recent Zaobao commentary, it was reported that a successful bak kut teh hawker had to close his stall because he could not employ foreigners to work as service crew and few Singaporeans wanted to work in the food and beverage industry. The hawker chose to close down his stall even though business was good. He did so not because his culinary skills were poor, nor was it because business was no good. On the contrary, his business was so good that he could not cope. It is sad to hear these stories. I hope that while the Government supports SMEs in restructuring to become leaner and more efficient, it will also consider helping those who have moved forward, to retain experienced skilled foreign workers, so that companies have a reasonable timeframe to automate, upgrade business operations and reduce dependency on foreign labour. This is because improvements in service workflow usually undergo a transition period. Businesses hope that the Government will consider their situation on a case-by-case basis and grant them a grace period of a few months or half a year. Greater certainty in terms of the renewal of Work Permit of good foreign workers will help bosses retain good workers. NTUC supports the retention of good foreign workers. What we want is quality and not quantity!
In the last two years, NTUC Hospitality and Consumer Business Cluster (HCBC) has helped many businesses upgrade. Under the e2i Inclusive Growth Programme, we have redesigned 230 types of jobs, and 9,000 workers have benefited from it. For example, under the programme, a Japanese restaurant
Page: 145
changed the way it took customers' orders, dramatically improving productivity and service efficiency. Similarly, Holiday Inn Atrium adopted a new laundry system so that the work is now streamlined. Existing skilled local workers realise that these changes have helped their jobs become \"E-S-S\", or Easier, Smarter and Safer. This is the right direction.
SMEs need the Government's support to continuously upgrade. They hope that the Minister for Finance will extend the PIC Bonus Scheme, just as he has extended the PIC scheme.
I would also like to urge the Government to review the application criteria for PIC, for example, the clause that requires companies to employ at least three local workers. Many SMEs say that they have a very lean operation, which is why many bosses also double-up as workers, helping to serve customers. They hope that the Government will review these criteria and allow bosses to be included as part of the local headcount so that they can benefit from the scheme.
Mdm Speaker, all these schemes, whether it is PIC, IGP, WCS or Work Pro, have helped many SMEs. Unfortunately, these schemes have been abused to a certain extent. I have mentioned some of the cases in media reports. For example, some \"consultants\" charge exorbitant \"application fees\" for helping companies apply for PIC grants. Recently, an employer told me that he was approached by a consultant who promised that he could get a PIC grant of $40,000. However, once the grant application is approved, the employer has to pay him 25% of the grant as \"service fee\". I do not know how much of the PIC grant has gone into the pockets of these \"consultants\" under such circumstances. We should put an end to these practices.
Various Government agencies have designed the application procedure of assistance schemes such that they are simple and straightforward. SME centres also provide free service to businesses. I think the Government should improve communications so that all companies know that these services are available free-of-charge. I also hope that the Government will take steps to stop unscrupulous companies from collecting exorbitant \"admin fees\" for applications and taking advantage of the Government. Such practices should not be tolerated. Only then can we assist those employers who genuinely need help, protect them from exploitation and safeguard public funds, ensure that every cent from assistance schemes are used for the benefit of these companies and achieve our policy objectives.
Page: 146
While we encourage SMEs to make good use of the assistance schemes, I would like to remind the SMEs that they should be clear about what changes are needed for their business model. In running and growing a business, Government assistance can only give them a boost, but entrepreneurs have to decide for themselves where and when to accelerate.
There are examples where entrepreneurs have done just that. One of them is Bake Mission, a bakery. They have further automated the baking process and redesigned their packaging so that the packaging process is now streamlined. Fewer workers are needed and manpower can be re-deployed elsewhere. The company's profits have also increased and they have shared the profits with their workers by using 12.5% of the profits to give workers higher wages. They achieved this with the help of e2i. I think that is important. NTUC hopes that all companies will share their profits from productivity gains with their workers.
Another example is Arrow Tyres. They deal with retail sales of tyres. With the help of SME Centre, they learned how to make use of various Government schemes to improve operation procedures. The company serves customers mainly during lunchtime, helping them change their tyres. In order to cut down the time taken to change tyres, they bought a new machine to install tyres with the help of the PIC scheme, shortening the time taken by half and reducing the number of workers required from two to one, thereby relying less on foreign workers.
Undeniably, the problem of manpower shortage is not only confined to frontline staff, as SMEs face manpower shortage even at executive and management level. Today, even though SMEs account for 99% of the companies in Singapore, employing 70% of the total workforce, our University graduates still prefer to work for multinational companies. We must find ways to help SMEs improve their working environment so as to attract more graduates to join them. Many SMEs have also asked me to tell the Minister that there is a serious shortage of local engineers and they would like to know the Government's plan in this aspect.
In general, we have to make SMEs more attractive to University graduates. Many SMEs say they cannot find suitable graduates to work for them. I hope the SMEs will take note of the various schemes, for example, the SME Talent Programme. With the help of SPRING Singapore, it is possible to recruit good workers. Meanwhile, there are also schemes like the e2i EDP programme and the CEP programme under SPRING Singapore – two schemes that help SMEs recruit core executives. In the past year, these two schemes have helped many
Page: 147
SMEs, particularly those in the F&B industry, to recruit 170 University graduates.
With the implementation of various measures, NTUC will work with various associations to help SMEs improve their work environment so that workers can feel at ease. I believe our SMEs can improve their operations and human resource management systems under the platform of tripartite partnership.
However, many bosses say that they have been caught off-guard by the amendments to the Employment Act. They hope that as the amendments kick in from 1 April 2014, MOM will help businesses. In particular, they hope MOM will be more forgiving to employers who flout the rules unintentionally. An employer who has a few hundred workers under him was careless and miscalculated the annual leave of three of his workers. They were one day short of the stipulated annual leave. As a result, he was fined several thousand dollars. He is worried that things will be worse when the amendments kick in on 1 April. I hope that the Government will give them some leeway and improve the communication process so that policies can be implemented effectively. At the same time, I also hope that there will be appropriate channels for employers to appeal and that the authorities will be more understanding of their situation.
Rental is another area of concern for businesses. Although rent for commercial properties in Singapore is not as high as those of certain countries in the region, we must still take heed of their situation. We can see how rising rentals of industrial and commercial properties can undermine the competitiveness of Singapore and our SMEs. In the case of Hong Kong, it has been rated as one of most expensive places for retail business. In Tokyo, some property owners are trying to protect traditional culture and businesses, for example, by allowing ramen shops and small eateries to rent their premises at affordable prices. However, this is not the case in Hong Kong, where rentals typically go up by 60% when the lease is being renewed. This has resulted in the demise of many traditional shops in Hong Kong, where shop space has been taken over by a new breed of retailers who specialise in selling infant formula milk powder, medical products and luxury goods to tourists from mainland China. I hope Singapore will not follow Hong Kong's footsteps.
Many SMEs feel that some of the landlords of local industrial properties are \"killing the goose that lay the golden eggs\" by asking for rentals that are too high, forcing them to close shop, or passing on the high cost to consumers. In the end, it is the consumer who suffers. So, I would like to make an appeal on their behalf. They urge the Government to implement cooling-off measures for the commercial and industrial property sector, similar to what was done for the residential property market. Business owners say that industrial property
Page: 148
investments should not become speculative in nature. They believe that the Government should limit the vacancy period of such properties to prevent market demand and supply from being distorted due to speculative activities or rising prices. SMEs hope that the Government will implement measures to rein in speculative activities.
Besides rising rental costs, many landlords and property owners have included provisions in lease agreements that give them an unfair advantage. They hope that the Government can be the third party to help come up with a more equitable lease agreement so that they will not suffer losses. For example, some SMEs plough in a lot of money to renovate a shop that they have rented, but the landlord suddenly back out of the lease agreement. I hope the Government will take into consideration their plight.
Apart from the points brought up above, some SMEs would also like to give feedback and suggestions on the following issues.
Firstly, they would like to know if Government agencies can speed up the approval process for various permits so that businesses can avoid incurring additional costs. For example, when a contractor had to remove four trees from a worksite, even though he put up a proposal to plant 20 trees as compensation, he had to wait several weeks for approval and, even after waiting, he has not heard from the authorities.
Secondly, for many traditional industries, rental takes up the biggest chunk of business cost. If they were to continue the business in the traditional way, many would be unable to make any profit. Does the Government have any concrete measures to help them to switch to another trade or relocate to another location or move overseas?
Thirdly, the food and beverage industry and even coffee shops are changing the way they operate, making use of automation to improve services and reduce the manpower needed to take orders and clear tables. But can consumers accept these changes? Businesses hope that the Government will consider working with them to change consumers' mindset and press on with restructuring.
Fourthly, in order to change these mindsets, we must have new ideas, innovative concepts. Does the Government have any plans to enhance support for them to go for overseas study trips?
Page: 149
Lastly, and most importantly, neighbourhood shops feel that they need more assistance and they hope the Government will enhance assistance schemes.
Previously, I used \"a little bird\" as a metaphor to describe SMEs. However, an SME business owner told the media that he is not a \"little bird\" but a \"very, very small and ageing bird\" which does not even dare to think about flying but only wishes to spend the rest of his life in peace. I sympathise with his situation, but I would also like to tell business owners like him that it is in a bird's nature to \"want to fly\", \"yearn to fly\" and to have \"the ability to fly\". Birds which do not want to and are unable to fly will be eaten by their predators quickly, especially very, very small birds. I urge the Government to do more to help the neighbourhood businesses. Just as the Prime Minister had said at a constituency bursary award ceremony, neighbourhood businesses have always contributed tremendously to the community, giving generously to charity and providing employment opportunities for residents to work near homes. We should not neglect them!
Mdm Speaker, in an issue of the Taiwanese magazine, Commonwealth, dated 11 November 2013, the editor's note summarised aptly the current situation and the kind of mentality companies should have. Let me quote: \"For every country, every industry, every enterprise and every individual, 'transformation' is the keyword in 2014.\" Not only is every trade and industry facing change, the strength of every nation and the distribution of global trade and commerce is also undergoing change. Change presents challenges, but it also represents opportunities! Is there light at the end of the tunnel? The answer is \"Yes\", except that the source of the light is now different. The Sun of the economy in the next few years may rise from a different direction.
Let me quote Jack Ma, China's king of e-commerce. He said: \"Many people lose out because of the way they look at new developments. Firstly, they do not look at it. Secondly, they look down on it. Thirdly, they do not understand it and, lastly, they were too late.\" This is a very accurate but cruel reality. In Singapore, I worry that many enterprises are not interested in new developments and claim that they have \"no time\"; when they do not wish to look into it, they say \"there is nothing to see\". In the end, loyal workers lose their jobs.
Even now, many enterprises choose to be dependent on foreign workers, and they even believe that if the Government can increase the quota for foreign workers, their problems will be solved. But there are no \"ifs\" in life, only results
Page: 150
and outcome.
There is a common saying that \"the one riding the bicycle will never catch up with the one driving the BMW\". This clearly illustrates the importance of choosing the right platform and technology. Even if we want to ride bicycles now, we will feel that we are not up to it due to old age. That is why many on the road choose to travel by battery-operated bicycles. Hence, we cannot hang on to our past practices.
A business owner told me that our competitors are already going faster and we know that going uphill is not easy, going downhill is the easiest. However, if we choose to stay on the same spot, even if there is a road ahead of us, there will be no future! When one is running a business, he cannot be unaware of what is happening today or tomorrow. The crucial difference is whether one sees but is unable to change, or one strives to create a new route for the future!
The fighting spirit is part of an entrepreneur's nature, so I hope that SMEs will be able to overcome the challenges of our economic transformation, and that they will be bold enough to ask what lies ahead. Elsewhere, others need to pay to find their way around while, in Singapore, the Government pays for the toll! This is why bosses should embark on their journey quickly and decide for themselves. I am happy to be told that the Singapore Furniture Association will be organising an overseas delegation to study trends in innovative marketing amongst their international counterparts so as to find ways to deal with the challenging domestic furniture market and changing purchasing habits of the younger generation, creating a new market model with help from the Government. I hope other business associations will learn from their example.
I believe the best welfare we can provide for Singaporeans is to ensure full employment. Tripartite partners must strive to ensure that Singapore's economy continues to grow healthily in order to continuously create better job opportunities, so as to improve the lives of Singaporeans.
For this reason, we must recognise that SMEs are at the core of our economy. During this period of transition and transformation for the SMEs, we value every job and every SME employee. The Government must pay attention to the development of SMEs and continue to create jobs for Singaporeans. I support the Budget.
Page: 151
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
Mdm Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Tomorrow, Madam.
Mdm Speaker: So 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 .\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.46 pm.
\tPage: 152
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocol for Pregnant Women Prisoners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the protocol for pregnant women prisoners who give birth whilst serving their prison terms; (b) what is the state of Singapore's compliance with Rule 24 of the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders; (c) what prison facilities and post-partum support do these women and babies have access to; (d) what is the frequency of their access to each other whilst the mothers and babies are in prison; (e) what is the length of time that the newborn babies are allowed to remain within the prison facility and what are the procedures for these babies when they leave the prison facility; and (f) what is the number of women who have given birth while serving prison terms in the last five years.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The treatment protocol for pregnant inmates, before and after delivery, is in line with practices of our public healthcare institutions. Pregnant inmates are seen regularly by the Prison Medical Officer and specialists from the KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH). When the inmates are about to give birth, they are sent to KKH for the delivery.
The Member has referred to Rule 24 of the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners. The UN allows countries to apply these Rules suitably, according to their own context. Women prisoners are not restrained during childbirth. At other times when they are at KKH, restraints are applied as for other prisoners outside the confines of a secure prison setting. However, Prisons will provide appropriate waivers from these practices if required for the health and safety of the mother or baby.
A prison is not a conducive environment for raising a child. Prison staff will discuss alternative care arrangements for the baby with the mother. Arrangements are made with the inmate's family or, if this is not possible, Prisons will work with MSF to make childcare arrangements for the baby in the community.
In cases where the care arrangements need some time to materialise, the baby will be allowed to remain in prison and stay together with the mother. Inmate mothers and babies are issued basic necessities, such as clothing,
\tPage: 153
feeding bottles and diapers. Inmate mothers and their babies are allowed daily out-of-cell activities.
Over the last five years, from 2009 to 2013, 47 women were expecting a child before the commencement of their sentences and gave birth while serving their prison terms. This works out to an average of 10 inmates a year.
Under the Prisons regulations, a child may be allowed to remain in prison with the mother until the age of three. In practice, however, the duration that a baby remains in prisons is much shorter. The average duration over the last five years was three months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB's Orphans Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for National Development why there is a special condition under HDB's Orphans Scheme that at least one of the orphan's deceased parents be a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident when it is already a prerequisite for the applicant to be a Singapore Citizen.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Orphans Scheme is meant to provide a housing option for the remaining Singapore Citizen (SC) offspring living in an HDB flat, after the parents have died. If the parents were not SCs or Singapore Permanent Residents, they would not have been able to buy or rent HDB flats to begin with.
Nevertheless, for SC orphans with deceased non-resident parents, we are prepared to help them on a case-by-case basis. They can also buy HDB flats like any other household when they get married, or on their own as singles when they are at least 35 years old.
\tPage: 154
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discharge from Bankruptcy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Law what are the rules, regulations and conventions in deciding when a bankrupt can be considered for a discharge.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are two avenues through which a bankrupt may be discharged. First, the High Court may discharge a bankrupt by granting him an Order of Discharge, following an application made either by the bankrupt or the Official Assignee.
Second, the Official Assignee may discharge a bankrupt by issuing him a Certificate of Discharge, provided his proven debts do not exceed $500,000 and at least three years have lapsed since the commencement of his bankruptcy.
In deciding whether to grant a discharge to a bankrupt, the High Court and the Official Assignee take guidance from relevant case law that has examined the issue of discharge. Some of the factors that are considered include the cause of the bankrupt's insolvency and his culpability in incurring the debts; the bankrupt's conduct prior to and during his bankruptcy; the contributions made by the bankrupt for the benefit of his creditors; and whether there are any objections by the creditors to the discharge.
\tPage: 155
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1868,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Liang Eng Hwa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Liang Eng Hwa(1).pdf","fileName":"Liang Eng Hwa(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1869,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Zainal Sapari(1).pdf","fileName":"Zainal Sapari(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1870,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Teo Siong Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Teo Siong Seng Budget 3 March 2014_Chinese(from SI).pdf","fileName":"Teo Siong Seng Budget 3 March 2014_Chinese(from SI).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1871,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Patrick Tay Budget 3 March 2014_Chinese(from SI).pdf","fileName":"Patrick Tay Budget 3 March 2014_Chinese(from SI).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1872,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yee Jenn Jong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Yee Jenn Jong(1).pdf","fileName":"Yee Jenn Jong(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1873,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Seng Han Thong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Seng Han Thong Budget 3 March 2014_Chinese_from SI_.pdf","fileName":"Seng Han Thong Budget 3 March 2014_Chinese_from SI_.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1874,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainudin Nordin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-3 Mar _ Mr Zainudin Nordin Budget Speech.pdf","fileName":"3 Mar _ Mr Zainudin Nordin Budget Speech.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1875,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Baey Yam Keng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Baey Yam Keng(1).pdf","fileName":"Baey Yam Keng(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1876,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140303/vernacular-Yeo Guat Kwang(1).pdf","fileName":"Yeo Guat Kwang(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}