Mdm Speaker: Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 92, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2014/2015 in the Committee of Supply (COS).
In fixing these times, I have taken into account the reduction of Question Time to 30 minutes on the days allotted for the COS debates, and that the sitting times of the COS be extended for each of the allotted days which are subject to the approval of the House.
Additionally, I have notified Members that the sittings on the allotted days of 6 to 13 March will commence at 11.30 am.
The \"guillotine\" times I have fixed have been notified to hon Members and will appear in the Official Report [Please refer to Annex 1.] Order. Questions for Oral Answer. Mr Yee Jenn Jong.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stockpile and Distribution of N95 Masks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current stock of N95 masks in Singapore; (b) what is the distribution plan for N95 masks to the public in the event of an escalation of the haze situation; and (c) how will masks be distributed to the needy, and if there will be any change to the criteria used to determine who can qualify for free masks.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, the public is advised to follow the recommendations in the health
Page: 8
advisories issued by Ministry of Health (MOH) from time to time during a haze situation. N95 masks are, generally, not needed for short exposures, such as commuting from home to school or work. They are also not needed in an indoor environment.
Nevertheless, N95 masks are currently available at major retail outlets. When needed, we would release our stock to the major retailers to meet public demand. We have also worked with the People's Association on plans to distribute the N95 masks to the needy through grassroots organisations. The criteria for the distribution of masks will be reviewed, together with the relevant Ministries.
\tMr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I believe that I have also asked for what is the stock level that is in our stockpile now. Last year, it was nine million. So, has that level been adjusted based on the learning experience from last year? Also, I would like to know: for last year, what was the lowest level the stockpile ever reached, after the releasing of the masks from our stockpile into the major retail outlets? And I would also like to ask if, within our stockpile, the Ministry has taken into consideration now the need for children-sized masks and whether there have been suppliers found for these masks. Finally, is there any learning experience that will now be taken into consideration in terms of catering to the workers who need to work during prolonged periods of haze?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I mentioned earlier in my answer that there are currently available N95 masks at major retail outlets. If we look at the inventory of the major retailers, we have about 283,000 N95 masks in their inventory. Nevertheless, for the national stockpile, we have 16 million N95 masks, of which we have forward position of about 1.7 million to our retailers as well as the CCs and Zuellig Pharma, in preparation for the volcano haze in January 2014. Certainly, we have sufficient masks available. In fact, in the last few days, I went around to the retailers and I saw that their masks were readily available. I also spoke to the people I met and some of them shared with me that they have the mask at home.
The other aspect that the Member asked was the masks for children: there are currently no children N95 masks available in the market. As I mentioned earlier, it is important for us to see how the situation goes. Essentially, as I had mentioned earlier, N95 masks are generally not needed for short exposures, such as commuting from home to school and to work. They are not needed in
Page: 9
the indoor environment.
Nevertheless, we are very mindful of our workers, especially those who perform the essential services. We have worked with organisations to look at how we can facilitate the distribution and usage of the N95 masks when the haze situation comes to an unhealthy situation. They are very mindful of the welfare of their workers.
Above all, it is important for us to work together as a society. We have learned from past lessons and experiences. It is a journey that we take on incident after incident. I am very confident that we are more prepared this time.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
","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)]
Mr David Ong (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this Budget debate. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Finance Minister for a heart-warming Budget where almost every Singaporean stands to gain something from it. This \"cradle to grave\" budget embraces a \"leveling up\" approach for a fair and inclusive society and providing more help to those who started off in life with less. This year's Budget has made a pronounced shift in enlarging its assistance to the middle income. In short, many major segments of our Singapore society are covered.
Whilst the Government introduces measures to further restructure the economy with the view to creating a better future for all Singaporeans, it has not forgotten our Pioneer Generation who has contributed to the narrative of Singapore's success story. The bold and generous package to honour our
Page: 10
Pioneer Generation is timely and commendable.
Mdm Speaker, what I particularly like about Budget 2014 is that it signals a new social strategy of changing mindset and social norms. In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister mentioned that transforming the economy is not about technology and productivity, and definitely not about dollars and cents. It is a workplace culture where employees' views and contributions are valued up and down the line. Indeed, the progress of a country is not measured by just GDP numbers, but by how a society treats its people, especially the elderly and those less able to manage on their own.
This year's Budget has signaled a mindset change on how we view and value our seniors with the Pioneer Generation Package. Changing such perception and assumptions does not just rest squarely on the shoulders of the Government but is also the responsibility of the society as a whole.
Singapore, like most countries in the world, is rapidly ageing. So, it is timely and critical that the Government, community, employers, colleagues, families and seniors themselves take this \"bull by the horns\" to tackle and manage seniors and ageing issues.
Mdm Speaker, ageism in the workplace is very real today. Employers in Singapore have yet to fully embrace the Government's call to remove age discrimination. Older people are usually shunned, bypassed or laid off simply because of their age. Older workers are also disadvantaged when they are re-employed with \"downsized\" contracts usually with a pay reduction and lesser benefits, yet are re-employed to do the exact same work.
To make older workers more employable after they turn 50 and to provide incentive for employers to continue their employment, they have to be made more affordable, as evident from the Government's tiered reducing employer CPF contribution.
Whilst some employers take the increases in CPF contribution rates in their stride, others expressed concerns that this would result in rising costs which further squeeze their profit margins and, eventually, driving up prices for consumers.
Mdm Speaker, the real crux of the issue is \"mindset\", and it is this change which I am advocating here. Singaporeans must move away from viewing people in their 50s, 60s as \"over the hill\". Most of them, in fact, are very much
Page: 11
far from it. In today's shrinking workforce, our seniors will be playing a very critical role to supplement the tight labour situation. They must no longer be viewed as a liability, but as able workers. Our seniors today are more active, healthier and fitter than before and they can remain productive into their 60s and beyond. Many are willing to continue working even when they reach their retirement age.
Many of our seniors today are fit, qualified and with good work experience. They will find it quite difficult to face the thought of doing nothing over the next 25 to 30 years after their retirement. This is a potent recipe for mental and chronic illnesses. While staying employed will help build their retirement savings, it is also very much about self-worth, dignity and productive ageing. For that, being gainfully employed while one is able to work must play a big part. Our employers must value our older workers and do all they can to offer fair re-employment. Let our seniors workforce choose if they want to work or to retire. Retirement age has no bearing on one's productive capacity and denies many senior workers' aspirations for active ageing.
In this aspect, my first port of call, in changing mindsets, would be that of employers. Our Civil Service, being one of the largest employers, must take the lead in making its work place non-discriminatory, inclusive and an age-friendly one. Only when the majority of our employers adopt fair hiring practices will Singapore be respected as a country where meritocracy is the order of the day.
Older workers should not be seen as just liabilities or as a \"cost component\". Rather, the main reason why companies would be willing to hire or retain their older employees is for the value of their loyalty, experience, reliability, maturity and familiarity with their jobs. They, too, have contributed to their bottom line over the years. This, surely, is worth a lot more and fully justified for fair and equitable compensation, like any other staff in the company.
On a related note, companies should not base their success purely on revenue and profit margins, but also on how they value and treat their staff. It would be tragic when companies would simply maximise profits at the expense of their workers, especially our older workers.
Surely, if the company is doing reasonably well, employers ought to share its fruits with their staff, be they young or old, by rewarding and paying them fairly.
Page: 12
Work remains the most effective way of building one's CPF savings and enhances their retirement adequacy. I am particularly cheered by Budget 2014's move to further restore CPF contribution rates for older workers as that will help them accumulate retirement savings faster. In 2012, less than 50% of those who turned 55 were able to set aside their Minimum Sum, whilst 40% did not meet the MediSave minimum sum. Undeniably, CPF savings are significant for our seniors, as they will depend even more on them for their retirement and healthcare needs.
Thus, whilst I am happy with the CPF increases for those in the 50 to 55 age group, I am less thrilled for those who are 55 years and above. This is because as these senior workers get older, the contribution to their CPF savings gets a lot lesser.
Whilst the increase in employer contribution is a welcome step towards solving this issue, the additional 0.5% contribution from the older workers eats into their disposable income.
These senior workers may still be servicing their housing mortgages or be supporting their children's educational expenses. This is especially so, given the changing Singapore demographics, where people are getting married and having kids at a later age, and may have upgraded their homes in their mid-career and thus may still be paying their mortgages and their children's education even when they are in their 50s.
The adjustments that are made to the CPF contributions, as well as the policies which the CPF Board considers in deciding the allocation to Ordinary, Special and MediSave accounts, must take into consideration our seniors' profile, in order to remain relevant, as well as to avoid causing unnecessary difficulties to our seniors.
Even with the restoration in the CPF brought by this Budget, the CPF savings of our seniors will take a dive as they age. From next year, when they turn 55, their total CPF contribution will fall to 25% which is a significant drop of 10%. For those turning 60, their total CPF will take another 9% dip, resulting in a 20% gap between them and their younger counterparts. This means the older they get, they will face a wider gulf in their financial ability to shore up CPF savings, as well as use their CPF Ordinary Account for housing mortgages.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to call on the Government to do more to enhance the CPF savings of older workers by making more progressive
Page: 13
restoration to the employer's CPF contribution. The gap between older and younger workers needs to be narrowed.
For the 50% of members above 55 years of age who do not meet the Minimum Sum, the restoration of the employer's portion of CPF contribution is a much-needed step in the right direction. Our senior workers need all the help they can get from the Government. The employer can do the one honourable thing to show appreciation and gratitude in paying these older workers equitably.
Rather than tinkering with the older workers' retirement savings by using CPF as a calibrating tool to make them more affordable and employable, the Special Employment Credit and, now, the Temporary Employment Credit, can act as levers to help improve and protect older workers' CPF savings whilst assisting companies cope with rising manpower costs. Perhaps, the Government can implement a scheme where employers who want to recognise the contribution of their older workers can be motivated to voluntarily restore their share of CPF contributions.
Our society needs to have a mindset shift in the area of healthcare and ageing. The biggest challenge facing Singapore's healthcare system and most healthcare systems around the world is coping with ageing patients and the rising occurrence of chronic illnesses. My concern is that the enhanced healthcare affordability may solicit an artificial demand for healthcare services. Indeed, we need to move further upstream towards preventive healthcare rather than disease care. This is important as keeping citizens fit in the first place will reduce the need for treatments which put a further strain on our healthcare and eldercare facilities. More budget should also be set aside for preventive care.
We need to educate and motivate our citizens to adopt a healthy and productive ageing mindset as early as possible. They should do all they can to stay active, healthy and productive as they age. This also means staying relevant, investing in themselves by way of grooming, continuing education, training and upgrading, staying gainfully employed, securing re-employment and staying employable.
On a similar note, with a fast-growing ageing population – and our seniors are living longer – there will be more cases of seniors with physical and mental disabilities. As such, more social workers are observing an upward trend in the number of cases of elder abuse and neglect. In recent years, we are seeing an
Page: 14
increase in the number of personal protection orders (PPOs) taken out by parents against abusive offsprings.
Mdm Speaker, the issue of filial piety, the moral responsibility of family members to look after their parents and grandparents, needs to be addressed. This moral obligation to look after one's parents and elders is a common thread that cuts across all races and cultures. I am glad that this year's enhanced Parent Relief seeks to promote filial piety by encouraging and recognising individuals supporting parents and grandparents. The added feature this year is that family members can now share the Parent Relief in recognition that caring for parents is a shared responsibility.
Elder abuse and neglect are a complex phenomenon. One third of reported elder abuse victims were aged 80 and older, and the main forms of abuse were physical abuse, neglect and psychological abuse.
Our young must continuously be taught the moral responsibility of looking after their parents. Educators need to ensure and reiterate the teaching of filial piety in our educational curriculum. Families must also do their part to impart such values to their children.
We must never make it easy for adult children to abandon \"care\" for their parents on the excuse that it is too cumbersome to look after them. Whilst the Government has and will continue to provide support to families and caregivers, there must be adequate legislation to prevent abuse of the elderly sick and helpless parents.
For an ageing population such as Singapore's, it is essential that we start implementing laws to protect the rights of older citizens. Society must send a clear signal that it will not condone violence against an older person by caregivers, relatives or family members.
Indeed, this year's Budget sets the tone for the new social strategy in changing the mindset and attitude of the people, as well as social norms. The Budget goes some way towards catalysing this change, by emphasising, through the CPF restoration, that senior workers can be, and very often are, contributing fully and significantly in their work, regardless of their age. The Pioneer Generation Package does give due recognition to, and honour our seniors who had built Singapore from its humble beginnings to where we are today. Many of our seniors continue to make this contribution, irrespective of
Page: 15
their age, and we salute them for it.
However, it is not just about a Pioneer Generation Package that gives this special recognition to our seniors, but a whole society approach; and a change of mindset towards ageing and our commitment towards how our seniors should be honoured, treated and accepted on a day-to-day basis. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the 2014 Budget debate.
This year's Budget, like last year's, is socially inclusive and, taken together with the Budgets since the last General Elections, we now have many measures to help us address the widening income gap among Singaporeans. I am particularly glad that the Government is no longer pursuing a \"growth at all cost\" policy and, instead, focuses on sustainable and inclusive growth. As we approach the 50th Anniversary of Singapore next year, it gives us a good reason to recognise and reward Singaporeans before us who worked hard to build Singapore into what it is today.
The Pioneer Generation Package is an unprecedented budgetary measure in so many ways. Firstly, it is catered for everyone aged 65 and above, and I am glad to note that the Government chose not to use means testing or any other economic criteria to define the parameters of this package. Everyone who is from the pioneer batch of Singaporeans will benefit from the $8 billion fund. That is a fair and equitable way of recognising the efforts of all those who have contributed to our nation's development in the early years.
The Pioneer Generation Package does not just benefit older Singaporeans but also generations after. By subsidising healthcare costs, for instance, this helps reduce the dependency ratio for younger Singaporeans going forward and reduces the economic costs of an ageing society on them.
While this Budget can be lauded for achieving its social aims, I feel that it completely ignored a very important issue facing Singaporeans and companies, not just SMEs. And that is the high cost of living and high cost of doing business in Singapore.
Page: 16
The Government did the right thing by sticking to its productivity push as it is central to our broader economic restructuring efforts. I fully agree and support that, in the long term, our economy must be supported by productivity-driven growth and not one that relies on cheap input factors like cheap labour. There are two issues facing companies. One is the top-line growth of revenues and business, which I believe will be best tackled by the productivity and innovation initiatives, like the PIC and PIC+, and the other good schemes announced in Budget 2014. The second and immediate issue is one of cost of doing business in Singapore. We are at a critical stage, and I feel that the Government has underestimated the impact of high business costs on our future economy.
In fact, this year, companies are facing a triple whammy when it comes to doing business in Singapore. First, business costs have gone up, especially rentals and utilities, and some others – transportation cost, for example. Second, cost of labour is going up because of the tightening labour market but also including new measures like the additional CPF that they have to bear. And, third, shortage of workers, as we close the tap on allowing in foreign workers, even if employers are willing to pay more to hire them.
We are just trying to do too many things too fast and this is hurting many companies. The key issue of cost is not just a concern for SMEs, it is also a big concern for larger companies. I have met with some top management of some large MNCs here in Singapore and they have expressed their serious concerns about the unrelenting increase in the cost of doing business, coupled with the unavailability of workers. Some have warned me that relocation is something in their minds. While MNCs are more mobile, SMEs have less choices and will have to try to stay and fight for their survival. But I urge the Government not to take this for granted as we have a huge threat just next door.
Recently, I made a visit to a few industrial parks in Iskandar and I was shocked to see many factories already in operation and many more coming up. And companies operating in these Iskandar industrial parks are not just SMEs, but also some MNCs. If we are not careful and as more of our SMEs are forced to move to Iskandar, which seems to be the saviour for many of our Singaporean companies, some MNCs may follow them to be near their suppliers and subcontractors, which are mainly our SMEs.
The exodus may be larger than we imagine and so we should not ignore the potential impact on our economy as job losses may become a serious national problem in the future. We also risk hollowing our economy in the future and I would like to sound an alarm that we are close to the tipping point of this
Page: 17
happening.
I have heard this argument from some Government agencies that they do not mind letting some of our SMEs shut down and relocate as this would free up workers for the sectors that the Government would like to focus on. I say that this is too simplistic an assumption because our SMEs hire two-thirds of the workforce and, moreover, many of our SMEs hire the older workers which multinational companies do not want to hire. A good number of these workers will face difficulties fitting into the sectors that the Government desires, for example, moving from a manufacturing sector to service sector. I would caution the Government against doing too much of cherry-picking of sectors and companies as we do not know which companies will remain rooted here in Singapore and which may become long-term winners.
I recently spoke with the CEO of a Singapore-based company listed on the Stock Exchange which operates the fifth or sixth largest coffee processing plant in Iskandar and he mentioned that the lease he has to pay to JTC for one of his plants which he operates here in Singapore is too high. In Iskandar, his company owns a freehold property that is able to employ people, including foreign labour, a lot easier than he can do here in Singapore. It is a pity, because the factory is fully automated and it is the type that we would like to be based here in Singapore. I do not think we can ever convince such companies to come back and operate their operations here in Singapore. We, therefore, risk losing such companies forever, if we are not careful with our current policies.
Cost competitiveness. The reality is that cost and cashflow are bigger problems in our business landscape than some of us might imagine it to be. We saw a few weeks ago in the media how a subcontractor working for Keppel Shipyard could not afford to pay wages to its workers. There are others out there who also face similar problems. So, we should have seen how we could have helped them improve their cashflow so that they can survive. We have already given them the opportunities and the deterrents in our many measures to ensure that they stay on the path of restructuring and productivity. But they can only do so if they even survive in the first place. We need to help them do that. We need to look closer at the immediate needs of SMEs and help them overcome their survival issues.
Two weeks ago, a middle-aged SME owner came to the Prime Minister's Meet the People Session, and I was helping Prime Minister at that time. In addition to six Singaporeans, he has hired one foreign worker as a machinist who has been working there for seven years, while two other foreign workers' Work Permits were not renewed last year. He begged that the renewal of his
Page: 18
specialist machinist's Work Permit be approved, since he has no one else left to operate the machine. Otherwise, his six Singaporean workers, their families, his three children and wife will have no means of income to support themselves. So, what do we tell this SME owner about the rapid rate of restructuring?
Cost has also been a perpetual issue for the past five to six years, and every Budget has been allocating billions of dollars to help Singaporeans, and, in some cases, companies, offset the high cost of living and doing business here in Singapore. Here, I am talking about cost to every Singaporean in general, not just to SMEs. I think all these transfers and help that the Government is doing is not an efficient way to manage things, and the right thing to do is to go and tackle the root cause of the problem in the first place, and that is to address the real cost issues that we all are facing here in Singapore, individuals and companies. The Government, I believe, has neglected this cost problem for too long and we are facing problems and, therefore, it is costing the Government more by having to do special transfers like GST package, MediSave top-ups, utility top-ups and many others.
While I welcome all of these measures because the Government is helping Singaporeans because of the high cost, I think we failed to address the cost issues in the past. And I hope that future Budgets will focus more on permanent solutions for cost reduction that will not cost the Government so much in transfers as it is costing us as much today.
The high cost of business is also affecting our ability to attract foreign multinationals to locate operations here in Singapore and also giving a rethink to many of those who are already here. I recently had lunch with a senior banker of a foreign bank, a very big bank, which has large operations here in Singapore, and he expressed his worry about Singapore losing its competitiveness and the bank having to relook at its future growth strategy here in Singapore both in terms of what it already has here and bringing future operations into Singapore.
I would like to talk about Government land divestment policy – JTC and rental costs in particular. Part of the loss of competitiveness is due to the high rental costs for businesses, and that can be boiled down to one key reason, and, that is, the Government's land divestment policy. JTC was a landlord for about 18% of the industrial property some 10 years ago but, today, only manages about 3% of the market. This is a huge shift and the Government lost the ability to influence rental prices, resulting in developers and investors making the money – this is passive income and not productive income that only benefits the investors, including foreigners, who can afford to invest in industrial and commercial properties as an investment tool and not as a productive activity.
Page: 19
In return, the smaller companies find that they cannot manage the high rental costs and look for other means to cut cost, which inevitably leads to the squeezing of salaries of workers. This has led to the problem of Singaporeans unable to afford the high cost of living because the wages are not going up as far, and, therefore, having to have the Government step in year after year with transfers to help Singapore cope with the problem.
Let me quote one employer who made this comment to me recently, \"I would be much happier being generous in salaries to Singaporean staff than supporting the high rentals.\"
I believe it was a mistaken policy some 10 years ago for JTC to divest its properties that benefited just a few companies, especially the large developers and investors, including the REITs, and I believe we have to reverse this policy even if it means the Government having to buy back some of these REITs. In any case, the biggest REIT players are Government-linked entities like Mapletree and CapitaLand.
I would rather have a situation where many more productive companies benefiting from our land policies of the Government than a few non-productive large investors benefitting because it is an investment tool. In the long run, if we do not do anything to reverse the situation, we will be in deep trouble as we lose companies to other locations in Asia.
In fact, the cost issue is so chronic that I believe it is timely that the Government focus on this and I would like to urge the Government to set up a Cost Competitiveness Review Committee, something that we did 30 years ago when we faced similar cost problems in 1985. It is useful that we take stock of our problems and causes, and try to find solutions that will help our people in the future.
On minimum wage, I am glad that the Government has finally realised the need for some form of a legislated minimum wage scheme, something I have been asking for the last few years. Failing to convince employers to pay higher wages by persuasion through the progressive wage system, we now have a plan which legislates the need for a minimum $1,000 wage for cleaners and, later, also for security guards. This is really welcomed.
The current approach will, however, add to the cost pressures for companies and, therefore, I feel the Government could have adopted my suggestion of a Government-assisted minimum wage scheme which I
Page: 20
suggested at last year's Budget debate. Done in such a way, the progressive wage for cleaners could have kicked in without even hurting the SMEs through higher costs to them.
I also feel that we are neglecting the fact that there are similar low-earning workers in many other sectors of the economy and a limited progressive wage approach will not achieve the objective of helping the low-income Singaporeans manage the high cost of living. We may only be helping just a fraction of Singaporeans.
Furthermore, implementation of what the Government has announced is going to be difficult as we already saw with the caveats announced recently even before the progressive wage system could be implemented for the cleaning industry. As reported in The Straits Times on 24 January this year, certain categories of cleaners will not benefit from the so-called \"Progressive Wage System\", as swimming pool and home cleaners, firms such as those that remove construction debris from work sites, clean building facades on gondolas and animal pens in the zoo are all exempted from the Progressive Wage System.
Unless we have a universal minimum wage scheme, we will not be able to fully address all the issues related to the cost of living and the exceptionally low salaries Singaporeans are getting for a decent job that they do.
In conclusion, while we have to pursue productivity as a growth strategy for the future, I have issues with the rate of change that we desire. Similarly, while we are focused on reducing dependency on foreign workers, the rate of reduction is too steep and is causing companies huge problems.
The ambitious change that the Government desires is resulting in a confluence of too many factors at one time – high business cost, especially rentals; increasing labour cost as a result of policy changes like progressive wage; CPF increases and a tightening labour market, and also a steep reduction of foreign worker quotas. All these are happening together and too fast. An \"Instant Tree\" mentality of sorts once again. We must rethink and recalibrate the rate of change, if we do not want to create serious fractures to our future economy.
We must focus on two things – the right cost structure for Singapore, and the right wage level for Singaporeans. If done successfully, this will mean that the Government has done an excellent job in managing the economy and
Page: 21
country.
Budget 2014 is one that will be remembered for a long time for the Pioneer Generation Package and the several things that are good for Singapore. Taken as a whole, the past few years' Budgets have been socially inclusive and helped many Singaporeans – not just the low-income and aged, but also many middle-income Singaporeans. While I am disappointed that the Government failed to address the cost competitiveness issues, the many initiatives in Budget 2014 make it an overall good Budget. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. When Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced this year's Budget, I was personally very happy. The idea of providing support for older citizens, such as those in the Pioneer Generation of Singapore who were critical parts of our growth story, is something that I have spoken about with family members and friends in recent years.
My mother is in her mid-60s and she was very pleased to hear about the Pioneer Generation Package's focus on healthcare, given that it definitely ranks among the key concerns for people of her generation and older.
My father, who is in his mid-70s now, actually asked me about two years ago why more help was not being directed to older Singaporeans who did not have much CPF, due to the contributions framework that was in place during their careers, and who, in many cases, have to grapple with the higher cost of living we face today, in many cases, as retirees.
On the issue on cost of living, I noticed that there is a fair amount of excitement that is making its way in the media and across Facebook about the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report that ranks Singapore as the most expensive city in the world. And while cost has definitely gone up since our early years, since Independence, I think it is good to note that this report is an Internet tool designed to help human resource and finance managers calculate cost of living allowances and build compensation packages for expatriates and business travellers. It actually incorporates easy-to-understand comparisons of cost of living indices across cities. It may not be warranted to create a lot of excitement and concern over the rising cost of living, but cost has gone up since our Pioneer Generation days.
Page: 22
Much of the feedback over the Pioneer Generation Package has been positive, and I look forward to more details to be released during the Committee of Supply and the debate to follow. But the fact that it is for life, offered to everyone without means testing, and has its funding front-loaded through the $8 billion fund, is fundamentally reassuring, not just for the pioneers, but also for their families and children who know they will have help when it comes to taking care of the health of the older generation, now and in the years to come.
Another strong point of this year's Budget is the focused and targeted measures aimed at helping or pushing SMEs towards greater productivity and innovation, through the use of technology and reduced reliance on foreign labour. As the hon Member Mr Inderjit Singh had just said a few minutes ago, these measures may mean pain for some companies and sectors. But if we are serious about restructuring the economy in a way that is sustainable and viable for the long term, I am glad to see a clear signal and direction being set for the broader economy, instead of just a reliance on handouts or subsidies that often just paper over what really needs to be done by companies and industries to stay competitive in the global marketplace.
The focus on quality growth and the building of a fair and equitable Singapore society is an extension of the Budgets of the past two years. This consistency is heartening and helps to generate a greater sense of economic stability both within the country, and also from the point of view of external parties who are interested in investing or growing here.
But there were other elements in Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's speech which I found interesting and timely, given the environment we are facing today, and I would like to touch on those now.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that transforming our economy is not just about technology, and productivity is not ultimately about the dollars and cents of upgrading. It also requires a change in our social norms and he said restructuring our economy will succeed if it is tied to these changes in our social practices. I agree wholeheartedly.
As we draw nearer to Singapore's 50th birthday, it is quite clear that society has changed, from the pervading culture that existed at the time of our Independence. People are less inclined to follow norms or instructions blindly, preferring instead to question and having to be convinced.
Page: 23
The Deputy Prime Minister said that we need a workplace culture where employees' views and contributions are valued, up and down the line, and that productivity will improve when employees are engaged and empowered.
But I also think the benefits of this philosophy extend beyond the workplace. The efforts by the Government to reach out to more people in recent years, for example, through the \"Our Singapore Conversation\" process and various other forums, such as those organised by the Committee to strengthen National Service, are examples of how greater engagement is being conducted.
I was also very heartened to hear the Deputy Prime Minister saying in his speech that there is a need to develop a culture of excellence and mastery of our jobs. I work with different groups of young people in the course of my job and it is worrying to me that not all of them are passionate about becoming excellent at what they do, or mastering their professions.
More often than not, they place emphasis and give priority to work-life balance, a high salary or other benefits and are quick to leave if they sense better conditions elsewhere. I agree again wholeheartedly with the Deputy Prime Minister when he says that, as individuals or companies and as a society, we have to take pride in developing expertise and flair in every vocation. This includes the innate satisfaction that can be derived from being good at one's job.
This will play a crucial part in ensuring that our economy stays competitive and continues to improve in the years ahead. Employers, as such, have a vested interest to support the view that doing a job well is what counts, not necessarily long hours at work.
This year's Budget includes help for some of the more vulnerable segments of our society, with the aim of strengthening social support and safety nets, while at the same time encouraging a compact between personal and collective responsibility – and ensuring that everyone plays a role in Singapore's continued growth and progress. I think this idea bears deeper consideration by all of us.
It is a common joke to say that we are a country of world-champion complainers, and also contenders for the title should there ever be an SMS world championship. It might not be that much of an exaggeration.
Page: 24
Our instincts often seem to find fault and complain, instead of offering solutions or encouragement to those who are trying to do so. But as we enter the next phase of our growth story, the need for us to develop a different common mindset is becoming more pressing.
As our population growth slows, the ideas and creativity of every individual become even more important, as do our efforts in all areas of society. This collective sense of us all being in it together, is not just relevant when it comes to our future economic development, but also how we will be able to handle challenges in the years ahead. Mdm Speaker, I would propose to reconsider a different acronym for negative ones like NIMBY or Not In My Backyard. But before we criticise and complain, perhaps we should wait for a moment, and realise that \"We are All In this Together\" (WAIT).
Even as we enter new periods of growth, see the advent of new technologies, and build on the global framework of cooperation and collaboration in the current globalised world, challenges can hit us from the most unexpected places.
In just the last few months alone, we have seen unprecedented levels of transboundary haze which is threatening to make a comeback even as we speak, the first riot in almost 50 years, attempted cyber attacks on Government and commercial online infrastructure, and a spat with our neighbour Indonesia over the naming of a warship. There are also regional tensions within ASEAN nations, and also potential rifts between major powers in Asia, such as Japan and China, that threaten to embroil smaller states like Singapore, and global superpowers like the US.
Even as we grapple with domestic issues, such as local and national politics, policy decisions and implementation aimed at improving the lives of Singaporeans, and the challenges of day-to-day life, we should not forget that we are part of an international community. I think it is important that all of us bear in mind the need to look outwards, even as we look more deeply inwards, and remember that the world is watching to see how we conduct ourselves as a maturing nation and member of the regional and global framework.
The transformation of our economy is of interest to foreign investors; our social policies and how we treat foreign workers impact decisions whether to come to Singapore or not; and our cultural shifts and evolution signal what life here in Singapore will be like for all stakeholders.
Page: 25
The conversation about what it means to be Singaporean and what lies at the heart of the \"Singapore soul\", has been gaining pace, in part due to the debate sparked by the Population White Paper and other discussions last year. More and more Singaporeans began to think and talk about what values we hold dear and how we embody them in our daily lives.
I am heartened that this year's Budget, and those that I have been privileged to have been able to debate in this House in the last two years, have sought to incorporate such discussions even as we look at hard data and numbers. Indeed, the Pioneer Generation Package also prompts us to look back at the journey we have been on in the past five decades and to remember the lessons on the way as we gear up for the road ahead.
I would like to steal a phrase from fellow Nominated Member, the hon Ms Janice Koh, and say that I believe this year's Budget continues to help us on our way to becoming not just a liveable society, but a loveable one at that. Madam, I support the Budget.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for letting me to join the debate. This year's Budget is a very generous Budget that celebrates the contributions, sacrifices and values of the Pioneer Generation. I am fully supportive of the Pioneer Generation Package and would like to congratulate the Government for being able to fund it entirely out of this year's Budget.
However, when I looked closely at the revenue and expenditure columns of this year's Budget, two things caught my eye. The first was that almost every category of expenditure saw increases. The second was that two important components of revenue, namely, corporate tax receipts and personal income tax receipts saw decreases.
To the first point, that Government expenditures are on the rise, should not come as a surprise. Members of this House have been relentless in their feedback to the Government, whether it is in transport, housing, healthcare, education, welfare and so on. The Government, to its credit, has continued to listen to the ground feedback and stayed the course in building an inclusive society characterised by social mobility.
Page: 26
It is to the second point that I shall devote the majority of my speech to. Singapore saw GDP grow by 4.2% in 2013 and a tight labour market of 1.9% unemployment. It was thus very surprising for me to see corporate income tax receipts and personal income tax receipts decreasing year on year.
Corporate tax receipts decreasing when GDP is growing suggests to me that the corporate profit margins are being squeezed. Companies are finding it less profitable to do business in Singapore. Is this a result of Singapore being less competitive?
Members of this House have spoken extensively on rising labour costs and other business costs, for example, rising rentals. The Minister for Finance has attributed this to the painful adjustment process that our economy must go through to restructure to higher quality growth. While a single data point does not make a trend, does the Minister foresee this statistic getting worse before it gets better? What are the drivers of this statistic from his perspective, and how would it impact Government revenues going forward?
Personal income tax receipts decreasing when labour market is tight suggests either that the top 20% of wage earners who pay 80% of our income taxes find it less compelling to remain in Singapore and have relocated, or that compensations have been lowered as a result of profitability of companies being impacted. To me, both scenarios would suggest that Singapore, as a business centre, is becoming less competitive. How does the Minister interpret this statistic and does he view it as a cyclical or secular development?
I am concerned that these two important components of Government revenue are lower because: firstly, our ability to fund all the good things that our citizens aspire to are directly contingent on how much revenue the Government raises. How do we subsidise more HDB flats, provide more education, build more MRT lines and put up more hospital beds?
Secondly, these are the two healthiest ways for the Government to raise revenue without raising marginal tax rates and without putting extra burdens on our people; people pay more because they earn more.
Mdm Speaker, I feel this Budget debate is a good time for us to be more outward looking and examine some of the factors that might contribute to higher budget revenue, not as an end in itself, but as a means to provide a higher quality of life for Singaporeans. How can we capitalise on global and regional trends to upscale Singapore industries and bring about higher paying,
Page: 27
higher skilled jobs to our workers, and higher quality growth for the country?
The LNG sector is a good example. The Prime Minister unveiled the $1.7 billion LNG terminal at Jurong Island last Tuesday. Besides securing Singapore's energy security at competitive prices, it leads to the development of Singapore as an LNG hub. This brings a host of ancillary services and the development of an ecosystem – thousands of well-paying jobs for technicians, engineers, lawyers, accountants, traders and the likes.
It brings international companies like Glencore, Trafigura, Mitsui to set up bases here. By having the strategic foresight to make a big investment, we have first-mover advantage and embedded Singapore further into the global economy.
My question to the Minister is whether he will consider making more of such investments in areas like agriculture, palm oil, freight, coal, iron ore or metals to make Singapore a wider commodities hub.
How will the sale of SMX and the delisting of existing commodities contracts by CME impact us in this regard?
Another example is Singapore being chosen as an offshore RMB hub. This status was achieved after many years of close cooperation with China at government-to-government level, business-to-business level, and people-to-people level. It was quite a pleasant surprise when Mr Zhang Gaoli, Politburo Standing Committee member, was named as co-chair of the Sino-Singapore Joint Council of Bilateral Co-operation, and announced our RMB status during the Deputy Prime Minister's visit to China. I would like to extend my congratulations to the Government for having this strategic foresight.
China's rise is inexorable and the internationalisation of the RMB is inevitable. Singapore, being an offshore RMB hub, is directly contributing to Singaporeans' ability to get good paying jobs in the financial sector. As Mr Ravi Menon pointed out, \"The critical factors that will determine how well Singapore develops as an RMB hub are liquidity and a range of hedging products\". In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the efforts that the MAS has embarked upon to further develop and augment Singapore's status as an RMB hub and as a financial centre.
My final example is the setting up of an ecosystem for tech startups.
Page: 28
In an article on 18 January 2014, the Economist magazine highlighted Singapore's efforts in setting up Blk 71 at Ayer Rajah Crescent as a home for 100 tech startups. It mentioned that the National Research Foundation has been supporting this initiative, generously topping up investments by accredited incubators by putting in $5 for every $1 invested, up to a maximum of $500,000. But the magazine also warned that with the tech startup sector being an extremely competitive space, government policy can make a big difference. It says, and I quote, \"Even in Silicon Valley, defence dollars during the second World War and the Cold War primed the pump before venture capital took over.\"
I applaud the Government's efforts in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation. The question I would like to ask the Minister is: given that rental costs are a real concern to businesses, and a real impediment to cash-strapped startups, will the Government continue to support this effort by putting out more subsidised office space, especially to home-grown companies? Will the Government look kindly at employment passes for this budding sector? And will the National Research Foundation continue to support startups financially?
Mdm Speaker, like what Dr Lim Wee Kiak has mentioned, Singapore is one of the few countries to have a mechanism for another source of income away from taxes, in the form of Net Investment Returns Contribution, or, put simply, investment income from our national reserves. While it is debatable whether our SWFs assume more or less risks to bring about more or less returns, what is clear and incontrovertible is that NIRC has consistently given us an $8 billion buffer every year for the past several years, without which, Government expenditure would have been severely constrained.
My question is, therefore, whether we should devote more resources to this initiative to augment our Budget revenue. A good starting point would be to look at the Co-Investment Programme. In Phase One of the Co-Investment Programme, the Government has set aside $160 million with Heliconia Capital Management, which catalysed over $500 million of investments from the private sector. In Phase Two of the programme announced in this Budget, the Government is setting aside $150 million to catalyse SME Co-Investment Fund II and SME Mezzanine Growth Fund.
I see many benefits of the Co-Investment Programme.
One, the Government is actively encouraging capital-constrained SMEs to internationalise and regionalise. Two, Co-Investment Programme maintains
Page: 29
commercial discipline in investment decisions by letting the private sector take the lead. And, three, the Government, by taking a small principal stake in these funds or companies, is able to directly participate in growth opportunities, especially in the more energetic industrialising countries of Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Indonesia, India and China.
In this instance, the Government is not crowding out private investments because it takes a small principal position in each venture and works closely with the private sector to identify opportunities. It operates in the middle market of SMEs, away from the investments made in MNCs by our other SWFs. The Government further gains a mechanism to translate growth in the region directly into revenues for the national coffers, again, not as an end in itself, but as a means to fund our growing developmental expenditures and to bring about more benefits for Singaporeans.
To this end, I would like to ask the Government to consider expanding the Co-Investment Programme to a meaningful scale so that dividends accrued can be big enough to make an impact to NIRC in the future. In effect, we are growing another golden goose that will lay us more golden eggs.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, LNG, RMB, tech startups are all examples of Singapore trying to maintain its relevance in this global village.
This is essential for quality growth and to bring about good jobs for our people. This is also essential to maintain social mobility and cohesion as Singaporeans have more opportunities to find rewarding careers within Singapore and to see Singapore as a worthy place to call home.
MFA and MTI have worked quietly in the background to build more links to the world with the US-Singapore FTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and other multi-lateral and bilateral trade agreements. Singapore's external trade is three times its GDP. So, we have no choice but to look externally.
We should debate more vigorously how Singapore can plug itself into the global village to ensure that our economy stays vibrant, our Government revenue stays healthy, and that we have enough resources to do all the good things that our citizens aspire to. As they say, spending money is the easy part; earning money is not so easy. With this, I support the Budget.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, not here. Mr Pritam Singh.
Page: 30
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): In the Workers' Party 2011 National Day message titled \"Honouring our First Generation\", the Party made a special tribute to our Pioneer Generation, the first generation of Singaporeans who built Singapore during the early decades of Independence which was a message in gratitude to our parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, elderly cleaners, the retired civil servants, teachers and the first National Servicemen.
This special group embodied the Singapore spirit, the determination to work hard and to overcome odds to carve out a better life for all Singaporeans today. Indeed, they are a shining example for generations of Singaporeans to come.
In 1960, my father boarded the SS Rajula in India, a British-India steam navigation company passenger and cargo steamliner for Singapore, to join my grandfather who worked in the old Outram prison. Coincidentally, the SS Rajula was the same ship that carried troops from India to Singapore before the Japanese invasion of Malaya in December 1941.
This migrant story is not an uncommon one amongst many Singaporeans, particularly Indians who came to Singapore and Malaysia after World War II. Although my grandfather and many pioneers have already passed away, the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) is a welcomed recognition of the efforts and struggles of his peers who are still alive today and who embody the Singapore spirit – the determination to work hard, to overcome the odds and to carve out a better life for their children.
The emphasis of the package in the area of healthcare will give our pioneers some peace of mind even as the Government should remain mindful of those pioneers who may not be able to afford co-payments because of their chronic conditions and the high cost of medication.
I will speak on three issues that were covered in the Budget – transforming the economy through changing our social norms, the CPF rate increase and the Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS).
While Budget 2014 is likely to be remembered for the recognition given to our Pioneer Generation, the point the Finance Minister made about changing our social norms, in the long term, may well prove to be as emphatic, if not
Page: 31
more empathic than the appreciation generated by the PGP.
The Finance Minister spoke about changing our social norms in three broad areas. At the workplace, there was a call for a workplace culture where employees are appreciated and valued so as to engender an empowered workforce with real knock-on benefits on productivity. This was closely associated with the call for Singaporeans to aim not just for competence but excellence. Equally important, there was a call on employers to understand that doing the job well was the goal, not long hours on the job. Finally, the Finance Minister urged all of us, as consumers, to change our habits, become at ease with self-service facilities and, very importantly, treat service staff with respect.
The cultural changes required to transform our economy would have to be deep and sustained, with resources devoted to educative efforts and, in the appropriate case, with a regime of incentives and disincentives to modify behaviour. We have heard of such forays before.
Two years ago, the NEA took the step of moving in this direction by kick-starting a process of getting individuals to return their trays at selected hawker centres with a view to alter individual behaviour. This initiative was rolled out to 34 out of 107 more hawker centres in 2013. The results are likely to be progressive, with ups and down, but with the desire that, ultimately, only a minority of individuals will be more resistant to change than others. But, eventually, change will be optical in that we will be able to see the results of such initiatives and gauge how far we have come.
However, it is harder to gauge the effectiveness of measures, such as a more empowered workforce where the views and contributions of employees are appreciated and valued. Our companies should be made to see the real benefit of such initiatives, supported by Government incentives to promote such cultural change. This may well include leadership training packages and incentives for employers and businesses to send their middle managers and decision-makers for skills upgrading, and promoting, recognising and rewarding efforts to pursue such change.
Beyond how we are going to measure how our companies effect such change, a rigorous and sustained public education effort should be launched, both for employers and employees. This cannot just be another campaign – it will have to be more fundamental and whole of Government – getting people to be more conscious not just about productivity, but to create a belief in their ability and power to effect positive change. This will mean putting more
Page: 32
information in their hands, encouraging a spirit of inquiry in our people, and even relooking how we educate our children.
I would like to move on to the CPF rate increase. The raising of the CPF MediSave rate by 1% for all workers in this Budget was a positive announcement. However, it is difficult to appreciate this increase holistically until the impact of MediShield Life premiums is announced, even as the promise of a more flexible use of MediSave for outpatient treatment is welcomed.
It is, nevertheless, noteworthy that the new total CPF contribution rates of 35% for workers between the ages of 50 and 55, and 25% for workers aged between 55 and 60 have surpassed those proposed by the 2003 Economic Review (ERC) Sub-Committee on Policies related to Taxation, the CPF system, Wages and Land.
Nonetheless, I am concerned about the employment prospects of older workers in light of media reports that these higher CPF contributions would put a tighter squeeze on profits and because of the fact that it is our SMEs that proportionally hire more older workers.
In fact, the 2003 ERC Subcommittee's report referred to earlier justified reducing the CPF rate for older workers precisely to make them more employable. In 2003, then Minister Lim Boon Heng, on the back of the decision to slash the CPF contribution rate from 36% to 30% stated that having watched retrenchments carefully over the preceding 22 years, the invariable conclusion was that older workers are more vulnerable to retrenchments and take longer to find a new job.
I hope employers do not resort to selectively shedding older workers because of the 2% CPF rate rise they will have to bear for workers aged between 50-55, and 1.5% for those between 55-65. The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans in this age bracket do not qualify for the PGP and would need to build up their MediSave and retirement balances in light of the higher MediShield Life premiums. I hope employers do consider this larger societal concern, even as they battle on to develop new productivity initiatives, and manage with fewer foreign workers, in addition to the ever-present business challenges of high overheads.
In light of feedback by some employers, it would be important for the Government to nonetheless monitor the reaction on the ground with regard to
Page: 33
the employability of older workers in view of the CPF rate rise, so that our most vulnerable workers are not priced out of the workforce.
Finally, the Minister spoke of extending the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) until June 2015 with a view to continuing the scheme thereafter. The Minister stated that more than 50% of new cars received CEVS rebates, an improvement over 2012 when only 40% of new cars were in the rebate bands.
However, in assessing the efficacy of CEVS against the environmental sustainability and climate change, it is worthwhile to consider that the neutral zone where no rebates are attracted and surcharges levied lies between 161 and 211 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre. Even in 2011, about 60% of cars sold in Singapore already fell in this zone, so it is debatable how far CEVS, as it stands, is going to encourage a larger green footprint in Singapore.
While the CEVS is positive policy, there is scope for the Government to review the carbon emissions standards so as to alter behaviour in favour of greener policies through a scheme of clearer and sharper incentives and disincentives. As the reality of climate change becomes ever more apparent, there is considerable scope for Singapore to increase its soft power by establishing itself as a leader in embracing green technologies in view of our small size. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, this Budget is a special and significant one. It seeks to honour our past, even as it provides for the present and prepares for the future. It is values-driven.
What stands out for me in this Budget is the emphasis to build a fair and equitable society, and to give special recognition to our Pioneer Generation. It is through such economic and social policies that we give effect to our values and principles, and reveal the character of our society.
The generous subsidies and top-ups in this Budget for social support, especially for our elderly and the vulnerable groups, signal a pivotal shift in policy. Another notable shift is to extend the subsidy net to the middle income group, including those who live in HDB executive flats. If we include the Pioneer Generation Package, even those who live in landed properties benefit. This is a
Page: 34
first for them.
These shifts are tectonic when compared to the Budgets of Singapore's earlier years. Against a turbulent backdrop of uncertainty and instability in Singapore's history, the focus at that time was on building up Singapore's capabilities and saving for the future. That required difficult decisions to be made which came with the inevitable pain and sacrifice.
Because of bold town planning, which required land to be acquired and people resettled into HDB flats, we have now a world-class city and public housing programme. Because of the far-sighted focus on industrialisation and economic growth, which required our people to be re-skilled, we enjoy a high standard of living today. And because of a frugal fiscal policy, which avoided the pitfalls of the welfare state, we have accumulated healthy reserves. These have provided a strong foundation for us to improve life opportunities for all, continue to strengthen Singapore's competitive edge in the world, and to position Singapore for the future.
I would like to make three points. The first is on communication, service delivery and empathy. The second is on the need to focus on preventive healthcare and to provide incentives for that, and the third is to prepare our younger generation to face an uncertain future.
Madam, first, communication. There have been various media reports about the vulnerable groups not being aware of the various financial assistance schemes available. Because of their lack of knowledge, they suffer and struggle alone, and become more anxious than they need to be. Their ignorance has damaging effects on three levels – first, on the individuals themselves and their families; second, on the cohesiveness of the community; and, third, on the reputation of this Government.
For example, I read a recent BBC report headlined \"How do Singapore's poor families get by\" and that report featured an interview with a jobless single mother with six young children living in a rental flat. According to the report, she receives about S$600 a month in Government aid and money from a boyfriend. But she said she could not afford medicine. To quote her; \"No one can afford to get sick in this house because our finances are too tight.\"
Now, why would she say that \"no one can afford to get sick\"? Was it because she did not know that she can get assistance for her medical bills? Was it because she knew about them, but found it difficult to access them? Or was it
Page: 35
because the saying \"no one can afford to get sick in Singapore\" has been repeated so often that some people think it must be true? This BBC report, among others, is now repeating it to a worldwide audience. It is unfortunate, not only because it gives an unfair picture of Singapore to the world but also because it may mislead our own people. Such misinformation, if not corrected, can breed and intensify resentment between the haves and the have-nots, and also against the Government, and unfairly.
This brings me to a related point – on service delivery. While the Government has strengthened and widened its social welfare net, it is imperative that it improves on its one-stop social service centres like our CDCs and the training of the staff manning them. By going to one centre in their neighbourhood, citizens should have most of their needs met – finding a job, financial assistance, helping education and skills development, and accessing help schemes offered by various VWOs – and all delivered with empathy.
Frontline staff in polyclinics and hospitals should also be trained to help citizens who find it hard to pay their medical bills upfront. We must ensure that no one falls through the cracks. This includes those who do not qualify for public assistance but are facing genuine financial difficulties in paying their medical bills.
Some residents at my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) report that they were given the impression at hospitals that they will not get the necessary check-ups, operation or medication if they cannot afford to pay for these. We must fix this.
We value self-reliance, but illness should not lead to despair, destitution or bankruptcy. The human element at these points of contact is crucial – as no matter how we explain all the subsidies and schemes available, no matter how many dialogues we have on the ground, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is fruitless to explain to them how wonderful the pudding is and all the complicated ingredients in it, whether in four languages or six dialects – but then, when it comes to the crunch, the people at the frontline do not show them the pudding, much less invite them to eat it.
Also, let us make it easier for them to digest it. Some of the schemes, like MediShield Life, appear complicated to the average person. The name itself – MediShield Life – is hard to pronounce, especially for our low-educated elderly.
Why not simplify it? It does not take much to rename it \"MediLife\", a three-syllable word like MediSave and MediFund. It will also make it easier for us to
Page: 36
explain to our pioneers who, to be honest, really do not care much for the details. They just want to be assured that they can afford medical treatment when they need it. We can say in simple terms, as I am sure many of us have on the ground, \"Auntie, do not worry about paying for your medical bills, have MediSave. Government will top up MediSave for you every year – for life – $200 to $800 a year. The older you are, the more you will get. Also do not worry about big hospital bills, have MediLife. This is your insurance for life. Even if you have a heart problem or other health problems, do not worry, you will be covered. Oh, Aunty, you are 82 already? Do not worry. The Government will pay your premiums for you. And do not worry about going to specialist outpatient clinics or polyclinics – you get a big discount – extra 50%. No money still and still cannot afford to pay your medical bills? Do not worry, have MediFund. If you still worry, please come and see me!\"
I think this is the message that Members have been going around on the ground to explain in very simple terms. But it will help if the terms or the names will be simpler, like \"MediLife\". It makes a difference. It may seem like a small step but, to the elderly, to say \"MediShield Life\", it is quite a mouthful.
My second point is on preventive healthcare. While ensuring that public concerns over healthcare costs are addressed, we should step up our focus on preventive healthcare for our active elderly, and provide more funding for wellness centres and programmes. To motivate our seniors, we should find meaningful ways to reward those who take care of their overall well-being, not only their physical health but also mental, emotional and social health, because these tend to be linked.
Madam, I was having my regular swim the other day and met a neighbour in his 80s. He swims more than I do. He works hard at keeping himself fit – swims twice a day and also goes to the gym. As we got out of the pool, I told him about our Pioneer Generation Package, and I found myself having to knock on wood when talking about hospital bills and such, because he is such a healthy person. His first response was, \"Oh, that is good, but nothing for me when I am fit and healthy?\" Indeed, a few other seniors who join my constituency's wellness programmes also echoed that view, \"Why must we wait until we are sick or dying before enjoying the benefits of being a pioneer?\"
Indeed, while I understand the reasons for focusing the PGP on healthcare, it would be meaningful to complement that with schemes that can improve their quality of life while they are still healthy. It need not be a top-down Government approach, from this Budget alone; it can be a ground-up whole-of-society approach. For this, I propose that the CHAS medical subsidy card, which all our
Page: 37
pioneers will now be eligible for under the PGP, be turned into a special identification card for our pioneers. We can call it the Pioneer card. This Pioneer card should have a distinctive design and colour – perhaps the colours of the flag – half in red and the other half in white. This card can then double up as a distinctive identification card for them, while still being a CHAS card.
Such identification will make it easier for other organisations to play their part to also honour them with discounts or special treatments for various services and programmes. For example, the community can then extend to those with the Pioneer card special discounts or even free access to some of the community activities and wellness programmes. Such a move will also ensure that honouring our pioneers is not just a package in the Budget, but an ongoing and continuous lifetime whole-of-society effort.
With many organisations stepping up and helping the seniors in this way, the worry of many of our elderly over the rising cost of living can also be mitigated to some extent. Having said that, I wish there was a cash element in the PGP. Some elderly, especially those who are cash-strapped, would appreciate cash instead of MediSave top-ups.
In future, perhaps the Finance Minister can consider giving them a cash cheque, much like the way MOE gives eligible students Edusave cheques every year. For these students, we encourage them to use the cash for their education, or to save it up for a rainy day.
Similarly, for the pioneers, we give them cheques but we encourage them to use the cash wisely for their own health and well-being, and with an incentive to put it into their MediSave accounts, if that is the concern of the Government. For example, they will be given $100 cash each, but if they put it into their MediSave account, the Government will top up with another $100, and so on.
My third point relates to the younger generation. Many have expressed concerns about the cost of living and the competition for jobs in an increasingly globalised world. Some wonder whether they would enjoy the gains that the previous generations did.
Madam, it worries me that, in some circles, it has become somewhat fashionable to go around expressing pessimism for the future of our youths. The question is, are our youths set as a generation to prove the cynics wrong? The previous generations which have transformed our country did that, not by pessimistic chatter, but by defying the odds and believing that they could do it.
Page: 38
This resilience and confidence come from a strength of character and unity that is built over time, and renewed by practice.
Madam, let us talk frankly about the challenges we face. Across the richer countries in the world, the wages of the typical worker, adjusted for cost of living, are largely stagnant. In America, the real wage has hardly moved over the past four decades. Even in places like Britain and Germany, where employment is reaching new highs, wages have been flat for a decade. In Singapore, we have had real wages going up over the years, but how long can this be sustained?
This Budget rightly puts much emphasis on transforming our economy through innovation and productivity to counteract these trends. Rapid technological progress would bring profound change to all sorts of work, and it can be very disruptive. Many occupational categories, including white-collar jobs, are at high risk of being automated.
Most of the jobs that people now in school will be asked to do in 10 or 20 years' time have not yet been invented. They will have several different careers in one lifetime, demanding huge flexibility and competence. What they need is that one thing that is obsolescence-proof. And that is the ability to think and to adapt quickly. It is important to prepare our young for the changes and the challenges and to build up their resilience.
I would like to ask for the Finance Minister for his assessment of the sort of jobs coming to Singapore in the future, and how does the Budget prepare our citizens, especially our younger generation, to seize these opportunities.
Though the future for the young generation of today is uncertain, uncertainty alone should never be cause for pessimism, as has been shown by the previous generations. Many Singaporeans take the current higher living standards for granted in part because they have come to view the country's growth as a given. Yet, the road to riches was rockier and paved with more pain and sacrifice than is often appreciated.
In the past, the older generation accepted difficult changes as the price for progress, and for ensuring Singapore's enduring sustainability, and trusted a visionary Government to lead them through it. We need to renew that trust with the younger generation to deliver a better future for all.
Page: 39
As daunting as the future might seem to young people sometimes, we should help them acquire an outlook of optimism and hope. This positive and stoic attitude is crucial for them to succeed. This is no time for negative talk, the kind of talk we see on some websites. Not here, not today, not when previous generations have worked so hard to get us this far, not when there is so much at stake.
In conclusion, in my speech, I emphasised the need for better communication and service delivery of social assistance. I also stressed the need for preventive health measures backed by cash incentives, and more funding for wellness programmes and on the importance of preparing our younger generation for an uncertain future and building their trust in the Government.
The problems of higher inequality, slowing incomes and ageing populations are testing social systems all over the world, leading to a search for new solutions. Even in relatively egalitarian places like Sweden, inequality among the employed has risen sharply.
This Budget highlights our unique Singapore formula which is constantly evolving with changing times and circumstances. And I commend the Finance Minister for his reformist attitude towards our challenges. In this Budget, this Government's sense of responsibility towards future generations continues to inform the long-term reforms to our schools, investment in national infrastructure and in the imperative of having a sustainable budget position.
In a political climate dominated by immediate wants and demands, the importance of longer term planning cannot be underestimated. It is only through such long strategic lenses that we can meet the challenges ahead and grasp the opportunities which will shape the coming decades. On that note, I support the Motion.
Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, thank you for your patience. There is method in Minister Tharman's Budget planning. In a world of competing demands and moving realities, one by one, the cornerstones of citizen concerns and economic sharpness are squarely tackled. Whether it is manpower or education policy, economic or real babies productivity, the approach is not reactive or populist. It is a steady hand that guides Singapore
Page: 40
towards a quality and inclusive growth.
My speech will focus on the letter \"S\", 3Ss, before finishing in Mandarin.
The first \"S\": the Spirit of this Budget. 家有一老，如有一宝. The PAP Government values and honours our Pioneer Generation. The size of the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) speaks for itself. Pioneers fought for this nation, they have toiled day and night, blood and sweat, it is now our turn to look after them. My father, my grandfather and even my great grandfather are all pioneers of this land and have grown up listening to many early Singapore stories. But you have had an overdose of grandfather stories over the last two days, so I will spare you from it.
The focus on healthcare is important because it is an unsettling uncertainty for everyone. Together with enhanced CPF and elderly employment schemes, Senior's Mobility and Enabling Fund and house monetisation schemes, support for our seniors is now substantial.
Our spirit is also with the marginalised. They will enjoy enhanced access to special education; affirmation of caregivers through joint claims for higher parent relief and enhanced handicapped dependants relief; and increased subsidies for special transport arrangements for the disabled.
But we can do better to emphasise on integration. For instance, while some disabled people will need exclusive transport, many more can be integrated into the workplace, schools and public facilities – with help from inclusive solutions like motorised wheelchairs and universal access. Through WorkPro and WOW!Funds, permanent flexi-work, which is more suitable for the marginalised, can become more accessible. Such work will give them non-wage benefits which sheltered workshops and odd jobs do not. Can the Government inject bigger funds to incentivise more social enterprises and companies alike to tap on this latent workforce and give a boost to the dignity level of our marginalised community? There is nothing that gives more dignity than work.
Budget 2014 honours the spirit of social mobility and intergenerational progress. This is the dream of our Pioneer Generation – that life gets better for each generation, for their children. Today, 25% of households pay only $3 per month for kindergartens. Even middle income households of up to $1,900 per capita per month can access tertiary bursaries and get help to invest in their children's future.
Page: 41
In January this year, my constituency gave out some $700,000 worth of bursaries, and soon, a Punggol North education fund will be set up to ensure no child being left behind. Bear in mind that this is over and above the already highly subsidised education that every Singapore child enjoys.
It is noteworthy that the Government could have chosen not to fully fund the $8 billion PGP, so that people who want it would have to continue to vote for it, while the younger generations pay for it. But no, this is not the case. This is fully-funded today so there is no blank cheque. There is no \"kicking the can down the road\". This is integrity and commitment, the spirit of a responsible Government at work. We learnt these values of determination, prudence and honest hardwork from our beloved Pioneer Generation of workers, leaders and civil servants!
We are a nation that pays it forward. And, do not let anyone tell us otherwise!
Now, onto the 2nd \"S\": the \"S\" in SMEs. Many SMEs are local born and bred, and hire Singaporeans of all stripes. They include the micro-businesses of the mom and pop shops, IT-startups, and social enterprises that give the real second chance to ex-offenders and disabled alike. They comprise 99% of all enterprises in Singapore, hire seven out of every 10 workers or 2.4 million people, and contribute almost half of national GDP. SMEs serve Singapore in every way.
Has the Budget gone far enough to uplift the valuable \"S\" in the SMEs, the small and the social enterprises, in the midst of painful economic restructuring? It appears that many of the benefits in this and previous Budgets favour the \"Ms\" or larger-sized, more progressive companies. The fiscal carrot and stick saw consolidation and overseas expansion where size matters.
But small can be beautiful too. When appreciated and properly fertilised, the fruits may be uniquely Singaporean. Business models and aspirations have changed, especially in the virtual world. Wealth creators should not be measured by whether they hire 200 people or have 20 branches across the country. WhatsApp, which was recently sold for US$19 billion, started as a one-man show. And while it is the world's largest message service app with 465 million active users worldwide, it only has 55 employees till this day. Would Jan Koum, the founder of WhatApp, have the same access to resources and success if he was in Singapore?
Page: 42
Business costs have gone up substantially in rent and manpower. Small businesses are most affected. Why not develop more cheap rental and co-location industry clusters with centralised services, and facilitate group hunting for demand and supply. This has been done for the food, bio-med, media, green-tech industry and so on. We need many more experiments like Block 71 near Fusionpolis to nurture small players to grow indigenous innovation. Even more, I dream about a physical park for social enterprises. Why? Because social enterprises espouse the ethos of a self-reliant society that cares for double bottom lines and we need to generously spur this.
Do the relevant agencies know what it means to develop an entrepreneurial ecosystem and not just meet agency KPIs? I think they will have to meet the entrepreneurs on the ground, face to face rather than have unhelpful, half-hearted attempts with short leases or steep terms. Let us invest in them to bring us the next big bang in business and economic development.
Continuing on my tradition of a social innovation big idea in every Budget speech, let me introduce the third \"S\": social Big Data or Social Analytics for greater good.
The Finance Minister said, \"We are developing an ecosystem to exploit Big Data and open promising new services opportunities.\" Clearly, he believes in the industry-scale transformative power of big data analytics. While I cheer the PIC and IPG programmes for business, I am reminded also of his very profound words that, \"Restructuring our economy will ultimately succeed if, at its heart, it is about the changes in our social practices.\"
In it, he spoke about a new social compact between personal and collective responsibility where everyone plays a part in making Singapore a better place. He is very right. The next era of development is human-centric in a complex system. Putting people at the heart of policies will be the killer app to transform economy and society.
Crowdsourcing and collaborative platforms are now mature technologies. If successfully implemented, they provide a sustainable framework for Government to better engage Singaporeans and promote collective responsibility to solve societal issues. Social big data, or social analytics, can provide critical insights into people's decision points, social behaviour, needs and aspirations. Such insights allow us to anticipate and address social problems early, and unlock great social and economic values.
Page: 43
I will give three quick examples. First, natural calamities like floods are rising. In 2013, Thailand investigated how citizens commute in Hat Yai before, after and, of course, during the floods. The results helped the local agencies in flood evacuation and planning. Second example, speeding and road safety are big issues in high density residential areas. In 2006, Sweden investigated the driving behaviour of road users. The results were, of course, helpful in designing urban street and peaceful residential areas. The third example is a fun one. The US retailer Target analysed the historical buying data for all the ladies who had signed up for the Target baby registries. It uses the data to predict when its customers were pregnant, and then sends them coupons for baby items. This led to an angry father asking why Target was sending his teenage daughter coupons for maternity clothes, thinking Target was trying to encourage his teenage daughter to get pregnant. Little did he know that his teenage daughter was indeed already pregnant.
Laughter aside, imagine if social analytics could be used to uncover vulnerable persons like a child abuse victim or a sickly elderly, and apt help can be administered in time, then, a lot more can be done to social services. Further, social analytics can help agencies and business co-create solutions with grassroots organisations, social enterprises and VWOs, to serve the greater good.
The huge potential of social analytics in public service delivery, policy and social innovation is too great to ignore. This is even more crucial as we increase our social spending. Therefore, Mr Finance Minister, please invest also in social big data.
Mdm Speaker, politics, education, economy and technology have all gone social. As we enter into the new social era where technology can better connect us to economic opportunities and social realities, our citizens and our spirit must remain at our core. We have to spread the entrepreneurial culture, nurture the next set of wealth creators, big and small, and bring all Singaporeans, including those who are \"differently abled\" to a higher plane of well-being.
When there is a sense that we are truly a land of opportunities, of meaningful life, of greater social equity, we will develop a depth of generosity and graciousness to be what our pioneers set out, each in their own special way, to build \"home\", a great nation called Singapore! I support this \"good health, good social wealth Budget\". Now, please allow me to use Mandarin for the rest of my speech.
Page: 44
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, previous Budgets took care of our economy, our people and our social sector. This year's Budget is aimed at creating a society of higher ideals, specifically, a society where \"the old would be looked after; the middle-aged would be fully employed, the young will be well-developed, the handicapped and the poor would be taken care of\".
The Government has set aside $8 billion to set up the Pioneer Generation Package, a unique package that sets out to take care of 450,000 Singaporeans aged 65 years and above this year, subsidising their healthcare costs for life, relieving the burdens of our seniors. In times of prosperity, we have not forgotten that the benefits we enjoy are the fruits of labour of the previous generation. The Pioneer Generation Package, together with other measures, is an expression of gratitude from the Government to our Pioneer Generation, which also helps them realise their dream of living a happy and peaceful life. It is a package that touches the heart, and reflects the Government's concern over the ageing population and what it is doing to address the problem directly.
The package is comprehensive and, therefore, rather complex. Many Singaporeans have only a partial understanding of it. Many do not know how they will benefit from it, neither do they know the details. At a recent community event, I talked to a long-time Punggol North resident. I asked him, \"How do you feel about the Pioneer Generation Package?\" He said, \"Good, good.\" I asked him further, \"In which way it is good?\" He said, \"Er, actually I don't know. Someone said it is good, so I assume it is good\".
Among those who will benefit, some are living alone, some are taking care of their 80-year-old aged parents and most are low-income workers who have worked hard in the past, who are illiterate, busy with work or not involved in community activities. We should spare no efforts and make use of various avenues to inform these 450,000 Singaporeans on how they will benefit, so that they can have peace of mind. This will also give our society a boost of positive energy and reinforce the traditional moral value of respecting our elders. It is our duty.
Conventional publicity methods, for example, distributing brochures, organising briefings in four languages and dialect, newspaper and TV reports, forums and featured programmes, may be good. However, these are aimed at different segments of the audience and the elderly may not understand them like we do.
Page: 45
In order to communicate with the elderly, we must understand their situation. There are many generations between the elderly and us. Some of them have not moved with the times, and there is a generation gap between us, in terms of mindset and language. If they cannot comprehend what they hear, they will not understand. For example, many organisations often ask the public to go on their Facebook or use phrases like \"for more information, please log on to www.\" But how would our old folks know about www.dot if they have not even used the mouse before? Therefore, we must be considerate about their feelings. In addition, they have problems like presbyopia, hearing impairment, deteriorating ability to think and understand. Hence, we must find ways to overcome this communication barrier.
I suggest producing a series of advertisements featuring key information. They should be about half-a-minute to one-minute long, with simple images and a slower pace. These should be repeatedly broadcast in four languages, so that even those who are illiterate and those with poor memory can access the information. For example, we can provide subtitles in large font size to go with the images, with simple narration and one message per image – this would achieve a better effect.
Set up information centres at community centres, RCs and CPF counters, so that the elderly can have a face-to-face opportunity to enquire about the package. In addition, set up hotlines for senior citizens to make enquiries.
Why am I spending so much time to talk about communication? Because the Government has done a lot quietly behind the scenes but they have not communicated properly what they have done. We need to use different ways to communicate with different segments of our society. The elderly have their distinct features, the young have their own lingo, and businesses have their own way of interacting. There is no \"one size fits all\" approach.
The important point is that a good government must not only be far-sighted, passionate and driven, but also possess the ability to communicate with its people. Otherwise, all the good efforts of the Government will not be understood by the masses to create a consensus. On the contrary, they may be used by others to flame discontentment, worsen hostility, erode trust and social cohesion. So, I urge the Government to put in more effort to communicate effectively with Singaporeans.
In conclusion, the 2014 Budget is a milestone aimed at strengthening nation-building and looking after the long-term healthcare of Singaporeans. It
Page: 46
is full of positive energy. I hope that the entire nation, from the Government to businesses, media and the masses, will work together and spread this positive energy to everyone. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Madam. Our Prime Minister said it well. Singapore is at a turning point of its history. Asia's upcoming transformation will be dramatic. Today, there are 500 million middle class households in Asia. By 2020, this figure will be closer to 1.7 billion.
The digital revolution is upon us and transforming Asia dramatically. The numbers speak for themselves. In the last five years, the number of Internet users in Asia has doubled to 1.2 billion. Smartphone users are up nine times to 738 million and social network users have quintupled to 800 million. To help us navigate through this changing world, we need a leadership that can crystallise what is ultimately important to us Singaporeans in the long term.
Mdm Speaker, we live in a world full of contradictions. We are digitally connected, yet as a society, we remain somewhat disconnected. We have one of the highest income per capita, yet our household debt is one of the highest. We are a meritocracy, yet there is a prevailing sense of inequity in our society.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to bring my discussion today around the 3Ds, that is Demographics, Digitalisation and Disconnectedness.
Demographics. Our population is ageing fast. Yet, instead of enjoying their golden years, many retirees are out cleaning our buildings, our streets and our toilets. Indeed, MOM statistics suggests that the number of Singaporeans participating in the workforce beyond the age of 65 has doubled from 19.5% to 40% in the last 10 years. Just last week, I met an elderly lady in her 70s cleaning the toilet in an auditor's office. She was so old and so tired she had to carry a low stool around with her the whole time. I was very sad to see this.
As a compassionate society, I applaud the medical packages for the Pioneer Generation. It will go some way to ease their burden. For them, it is too late to start saving again and many have to survive on low pensions that have not been inflation adjusted. These retirees, and there are also retirees who are asset rich but cash poor, who may require some help if they are unable to cash in on their properties. However, given our low fertility rate compounded by an ageing population, maybe the questions to ask are: one, are Singaporeans planning
Page: 47
adequately for their retirement and if not, what more can be done? Two, if we continue to raise CPF contributions by employers for elderly workers, will it affect their overall employability, especially when many now have to work for longer? And three, do we need to change the concept of work and encourage more flexibility for employers and employees?
Many Singaporeans are finding out, upon reaching 55 years old, that their CPF savings are just not enough to retire on. So, the CPF hike this year will go some way to help ease the cost of retirement. But let us not forget that the self-employed, like hawkers and taxi drivers, will not benefit from this group. We may have to do more to help them.
Whilst the workforce participation for the elderly has gone up because they need to work, the worrying statistic is the actual unemployment for those aged 50 and above has been rising in the last three years. In short, elderly Singaporeans find the need to work later in life but they are finding it harder to find a job. So, how do we improve the employability of these seniors? One solution, obviously, is to improve their productivity. The other maybe is to redefine the concept of work especially for the elderly and those who are retired and thinking of a new career.
The second solution means a change in social norms and workplace culture where workplace flexibility is accepted and mature workers are allowed to learn new skills.
Digitalisation. The digitalisation of the world has and will bring about profound changes in the way we do business, the way we interact with each other, and the way governments lead. It is like, if you lose your wallet on the MRT, it would take you some time before you might notice it, but if you lose your smartphone, you probably notice it immediately. The social network is the new production line where decisions are made. Everything is transparent and instant. There will be privacy and security issues. There will be more collaboration between society, Government and enterprise. We will need to create trust between these different constituencies.
While Singapore has the right ecosystem to thrive in a digital economy, we are a small, wired, smart city with an educated workforce. We can be nimble, we can train our people and enterprise will become smarter.
But one of the long-term consequences of digitalisation is the loss of many middle income jobs. Another is the increase in income inequality. The Atlantic
Page: 48
magazine suggested the Internet has become the \"greatest legal facilitator of inequality in human history\". Not only have low paying jobs been outsourced to developing countries, so too have skilled jobs, especially the \"middle-man\" jobs. For example, in the past, we probably used to book our travel through travel agents. Today, many of us use Tripadvisor.com.
So, whilst the Deputy Prime Minister may be encouraging more supermarkets to adopt self check-out tills, the longer term implications of our policies now are that we will be encouraging some of these middle income jobs to become obsolete, like cashiers.
Not everyone can become a data analyst or an online game animator. Whilst I fully support and applaud the ICT initiatives, the truth is, these new initiatives in themselves will not create that many new jobs for Singaporeans. They will create the much needed productivity gains but at the expense of their employees.
So, we may have to intervene to prevent a formation of a permanent underclass of unemployable middle class whose jobs have been lost in this productivity quest. Perhaps it also requires us to remain open to keeping the ecosystem of high service ratios in sectors that need it, like the service industry.
Digitalisation may sound a bit daunting to some, but let us not forget that technology alone does not change the world – people do. Thus, as part of a longer-term nation-building strategy, Singapore should recraft the education system and the rewards system to transform the labour force that becomes the new middle class. Tweaking the education system for youths is not enough. We need solutions that facilitate opportunities for workers to learn new skills at different stages of their working lives. The goal should be to turn our greatest resource, which is our people, into a valuable asset that the new global economy wants and will pay for.
Lastly, disconnectedness. All this digital connectivity is making us smarter but not connecting us any better as a society. We have become a society where restaurants have to provide \"unplug\" boxes to encourage families and friends to speak to each other instead of play with their devices at meal times. I know I am guilty myself.
So, whilst the Budget has been helpful in allowing businesses access to cheaper broadband and other ICT services, our person-to-person connectivity
Page: 49
is just not that great.
Some experts have described the state of online conduct in Singapore as \"troubling\" and potentially destabilising. The tendency to over-react, the inclination to spread mis-truths or just plain bad bullying behaviour online is a worrying trend which could lead to social discord.
Therefore, it is important for us to bridge the social divide that seems to be rising between the rich and poor, and between the local and foreign populations here. This is crucial especially now when globalisation means Singaporean families and social structures are no longer that simple. Forty percent of resident births here are to couples with one migrant parent.
The recent population growth due to the rise in migrant population has caused some Singaporeans to feel marginalised or squeezed out. In fact, a recent IPS survey revealed that \"32.1% of Singaporeans felt that prejudice based on nationality has become more widespread now than five years ago\". This is not healthy. Thus, we would not only need to forge a public consensus on our manpower policies but also clarify what role foreigners can play in our country, particularly as many of these new migrants still congregate with their own communities and are not sure how to start integrating better with locals.
Well, we are not alone in these struggles. For example, Switzerland recently set new immigration rules and many question if this big shift in policy is a major error that will hamper long-term growth. Perhaps, there is a lesson there for us.
So, how do we address these rising tensions head on? The Straits Times' Managing Editor, Mr Han Fook Kwang, recently commented that Singapore has a serious shortage of social capital. This means people living here do not feel they belong to the community. This results in a lack of community ties and a lack of trust in society.
But digitalisation can, in fact, be a tool to improve social mobility and mobilise more social behaviour. Digitalisation should not divide, it should unite. So, let us reach out to these bloggers who complain online and let us ask them to give solutions and let us get them to help out. It is easy to criticise online but, honestly, but how about turning these negative comments into affirmative action instead?
We need to get more Singaporeans motivated to work towards a common purpose – which is to make our country a better place for all. We need to find
Page: 50
this higher purpose that unites us all. This higher purpose can come in the form of social or philanthropic work, to help build worthwhile and long-term community ties. It can come in showing people they have a viable future in this country. It is about providing opportunities for citizens to achieve their aspirations. It is about providing people with a purpose that is bigger than they are.
Confucius said that, \"To put the nation in order, we first need to put the family in order; to put the family in order, we first need to cultivate our personal life; we first need to set our hearts right\".
So, let us work together to set our hearts right, to set our policies right, to build a stronger, smarter, kinder nation bonded by family, friendship, trust, to build a better Singapore for all. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I commend this year's Budget for creating opportunities for the future and providing immediate help for those in need.
A key focus this year is about investing in our people and giving workers access to training and good job opportunities. Strong support is also given to businesses, especially SMEs, to become better, productive and competitive.
I would like to share insights and maybe recommendations for three groups of workers who are affected by this year's Budget. Firstly, back-to-work women. Last year, I called for more employment assistance for back-to-work women. Through initiatives such as WorkPro, employers can obtain incentives to create a supportive work environment. Consequently, the data for females who wish to return back to work has painted a positive picture.
Overall, female labour force participation rate rose from about 51% in 2003 to 58% last year. However, for those in the prime working ages of 25 to 54, the improvement is very slight, only by 0.3% over 2012. Previously, I had requested for Special Employment Credit for employers who hire back-to-work women.
Maybe the Government can consider giving more support to first mover companies who are prepared to do more in family-friendly practices such as flexible work arrangements, work from home, childcare, nursing facilities at
Page: 51
workplace. So more back-to-work women can join the workplace.
Many I spoke to are quite happy with the enhancements to the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme, which help defray costs when they go back to work. Having more and better childcare support is also important and the plans to increase the number of childcare centres and enhancing the quality of early childhood educators will also give our working mothers much assurance.
However, we cannot just depend on our Government to do more. We also need to call on community, businesses, employers, colleagues and family members to continue to support our working mothers.
A second group of concern is the ex-offenders. This is despite the fact that efforts to equip offenders to enhance their employability and facilitate work reintegration have led to more inmates bagging a job before their release. However, recent report from Singapore Prison Service showed that recidivism rate for ex-offenders has gone up. In 2013, more ex-offenders commit a crime within two years of completing their reformative training or jail sentences. Among those ex-offenders I met, many continue to have low self-esteem, and shared that they find difficulties in getting jobs and acceptance at the workplace. Could it be that the effectiveness of our current initiatives has hit a plateau? It is therefore imperative that we do more to help ex-offenders re-integrate back to society and be an active member in our workplace.
Lastly, freelancers and self-employed. Earlier, hon Member Ms Tan shared about taxi drivers and other groups who may not benefit from this year's Budget. At the last Budget, I also shared about this vulnerable group of workers, that is, freelancers and the self-employed. This is not to be confused with people who own and operate their own shops, the shop proprietors and the likes of them. This group can include tour guides, adult educators, taxi drivers, sports coaches, real estate agents and others.
While they work in a non-traditional employment arrangement from the rest of us, their working challenges and environment are no different from 85% of employed residents who are employees of another company. Many of us commented that they are envious that the self-employed and freelancers are highly independent. They can go where they want; they can start work when they want. But not many are aware of the challenges they face.
Recently, I met with many of them at the NTUC event to discuss views and recommendations on MediShield Life. These are some of the comments that
Page: 52
they shared with me. They do not receive CPF contributions by employers because they have none. They do not enjoy medical or leave benefits. They are also not assured of a steady stream of income. This is not to say that these are their concerns. Rather, they are most worried about the fact that they may not be able to pay for premiums for insurance, housing loan, medical cost, should they lose their ability to work and therefore have no income. They shared with me their fearful experience during the 2003 SARS outbreak when, for example, the tourism sector was so badly hit. Many taxi drivers and tour guides had little or no income for a fairly long period of time.
We need to tailor our programmes to help the freelancers and self-employed. It is heartened to know we are not starting from ground zero and there have been good progress in the right direction by several agencies. Not so long ago, we debated on the amendments to the Singapore Tourism Board Act offering greater protection to our tour guides by increasing enforcement against illegal guiding. This is important as it will affect the quality and livelihood of our local tour guides.
The Minister for Trade and Industry has also agreed to consider my recommendation to put in place a capability development plan to upgrade our tour guides. Some guides shared with me that they face conflicts in their remuneration and experience unfair contract terms with travel agents. In considering how to set up a mediation centre, I hope STB can quickly gather views from businesses, tour guides and the union to address such concerns. Similarly, LTA is also working with the National Taxi Association and taxi companies on a mediation scheme to settle disputes between taxi drivers and taxi operators.
I am also aware that the Council for Private Education has a compulsory mediation system in place for students and private education institutes. I hope they can extend this arrangement to freelance adult educators who serve the private education institutes.
Madam, this year's Budget has a $500 million top-up of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I think this is a very significant contribution and commitment by the Government to upgrade the skills and employability of our workforce. More workers will be upgraded with this additional top-up of the fund. Of course, this also means that there are more business opportunities for people who are running training institutes and for the adult educators.
Page: 53
Our society has a role to play to help those who are prepared to help themselves. And I think it is quite obvious that the pool of freelancers and self-employed in Singapore is growing and becoming an integral part of our workforce. I have three specific recommendations that I feel that we can do to help our freelancers and the self-employed. Firstly, about recognising and appreciating their capabilities. I have been looking at the newspapers and I notice that it is still not common to see the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) as a criterion in job advertisements or skills specifications in tenders or quotations. This needs to change even as more freelancers take on certifications but may not be recognised.
I hope the Government, employers and buyers of services can speed up the recognition of skills training certification, such as WSQ, or other nationally recognised certifiable courses. We need to do more to raise the public awareness of WSQ and related qualifications.
Where in the past, buyers were not sure how to assess the skills level of the freelancers, they can now do so via skills certification. This will enable them to also pay appropriate fees based on the expertise of those freelancers they engage. As an illustration, I recently went to a hair salon and saw that there were different fees charged for different grades of hairstylist. This is in recognition of the different skills level attained by the person who is there working in the shop.
I would also like to recommend that we consider giving more segments of freelancers absentee payroll when they go for licence renewal courses or attend WSQ programme on their own.
Second recommendation. I think we also can do a little bit more to help our freelancers and self-employed must look for and market their services. For example, next year, we will be organising the SEA Games in 2015.
Apart from getting more locals to volunteer to run the event and support by attending the sports event, we should also work closely with Singapore Sports Council to get more Singaporeans to start playing or picking up a new sport. This will open up opportunities for sports coaches and trainers to offer their services so that we not only can participate in the sports but also can be healthy at the same time.
The third area is really to give them support so that the freelancers and self-employed can do more to save up for personal contingency. This includes
Page: 54
things like the ability to pay for housing, healthcare, deal with temporary loss of income and save up for retirement.
These are challenges faced by employees, but there is a fundamental difference between those who are freelancers compared to those who are employees. For the freelancers and self-employed, they have to make provision for these contingencies on their own.
The Finance Minister in this year's Budget announced that the Government will defray employers' share of the increased CPF contribution rate for employees aged 50-55 with a Temporary Employment Credit. This is most welcome. As what hon Member Irene Ng said earlier, this is no time for negative thought. In the past, we had asked for minimum wage. Some Members in this Chamber have asked for minimum wage, whereas others have warned that there may be unemployment resulting from a minimum wage. Today, others are worried that with this increase in CPF contribution rate for older workers, it may lead to their being unemployable because of higher cost.
I think we have to see this in context that there are other schemes available across the board from the Government, ranging from the inclusive growth programmes to help companies to upgrade and make their jobs more productive. There are also schemes like PIC. Two years ago, we started the Special Employment Credit to give support to employers when they hire older workers. When you see this in context, we have to understand that, indeed, there may be challenges when older workers want to seek employment. But there is also similar support available for employers to do so. The data also suggests that employment rate for older workers over the years has grown and we welcome this measure. We hope the Government can do more to help our older workers stay employable.
I would like to urge that the Government consider giving the same quantum under the Temporary Employment Credit to the group of freelancers and self-employed who make voluntary contributions to their MediSave. You see they do not have an employer so that they can offset the 1% increase. But if they do make voluntary contribution to their MediSave, perhaps we can extend the Temporary Employment Credit to them as well.
I would also like to call for the same amount of Workfare Income Supplement payout to be given to the self-employed, if they qualify for Workfare. Currently, they receive only a portion of what employed workers are
Page: 55
receiving.
Finally, our freelancers and self-employed workers are a unique category of workforce which also drives the economic growth in Singapore. We need a calibrated and measured approach to help them, of course not only meet their medical needs but also their employment needs. So, let us take it one step at a time. I think we need to start soon. Our economic transformation should also include doing more to help back-to-work women and ex-offenders to stay in the workforce. Madam, with that, I support the Budget.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): The ward I represent, Admiralty, was, at least until very recently, a ward with mostly young families. Recently, we have had a few Studio Apartments come in. What I find very moving about this Budget, and there are three main things I would like to discuss, which I think would make a very big difference for young families.
The first, perhaps counter-intuitively, is the Pioneer Generation Package; the second, the improved subsidies for healthcare; and third, the development in subsidies in education.
First, on the Pioneer Generation Package: this may come as a surprise, but in many of the dialogues I had last year, even with younger family members, one of their biggest concerns was what was going to happen to their parents – they are falling sick, they are living longer. Is anyone going to help with their medical bills? And in that sense, this Pioneer Generation Package is very timely.
For each of us, in each of our families, those who are second or third generation Singaporeans, we probably have people who would have been pioneers, either our grandparents or our parents. Each of us knows the depth of gratitude we owe to them. In my own family, my grandparents came over from India at a time when travel was by ship so there was no aeroplane to go back for quick visits, no telephones to make phone calls to keep in touch. They stayed through World War II which was a very tough time. They saw the early years of Independence. In many of our families, if we have pioneers to go back that era, their stories will be similar: the personal sacrifices that they made were tremendous.
In some families, it may be the parents as well. In my case, my parents qualified for the Pioneer Generation Package, too. They were born in the
Page: 56
immediate baby boom after World War II. In the later colonial era and early years of independence, we went through significant uncertainty. The success of Singapore where we would be today was clearly not pre-ordained, and, in a sense, these were the people who cast their lot and stayed with Singapore so that many of us today can benefit.
Perhaps the biggest worry in the minds of many in this generation who grew up at the time before things like CPF became properly institutionalised, is what is going to happen now. For those with children who are doing well, it is less of a problem, but those whose children may not be doing so well, or for those who do not have enough CPF, healthcare is probably the single biggest concern on their mind. Healthcare comes in many forms. It comes in fear of big hospital bills; it comes with ongoing bills at the clinics.
So, in that sense, the Pioneer Generation Package addresses a broad range of concerns on their minds. The underlying message that the pioneers would have to worry less about healthcare or, in fact, perhaps not even worry at all, is probably a heartening one. The biggest concern on their minds can be taken away and they can really enjoy their golden years.
From what I understand for the younger families as well, many of them who have pioneers in their own families will appreciate this, too. This is a very welcome expenditure – it is one of the largest expenditures in the Budget, but one that I think will be supported and welcomed by all.
Now, let me deal with the second one because healthcare affordability was also another concern raised by many of my residents. This too may seem rather counterintuitive because while it was perhaps raised as the biggest concern on the minds of many of my residents, when we asked whether any of them had difficulties with particular big bills that they could not pay or bills that they could not manage, no hands went up.
I guess there is a fear of exceptional healthcare cost even though we probably have a system in place to take away a lot of the strains. One of the most important developments in this front will be MediShield Life. The intention is that Pioneer Generation Package is going to be one-off. But what that would mean is that for the next generation, in order for their long-term healthcare needs to be taken care of, a system like MediShield Life will be crucial to plug that gap. In that sense, the idea of mandatory insurance to deal with big bills is something that is important, and something that I think it is good to plan for early so that we will not have to come up with packages for each and every
Page: 57
generation to meet their long-term medical needs.
The expanded subsidies at Specialist Outpatient Clinics are also welcomed because these are, again, ongoing costs, especially for people who might have chronic conditions. A lot of these assistance schemes in healthcare will ease more of the concerns that many of the younger families have as well.
The final aspect that I want to deal with is education. One of things that was unique for Singapore in the earlier years and what has helped the children of the pioneers do better than the pioneers themselves is the fact that they had access to education. In that sense, the two areas of education that are potentially more expensive are pre-school education and tertiary education which are the exact two areas that this Budget is targeting. That is welcome.
Given that we have limited resources, if we are looking at a further review of these schemes, rather than having universal free education for everyone, what I would advocate is that we have greater subsidies to make sure that everyone has access to higher education and access pre-school education.
I would, therefore, prefer more targeted subsidies for those who need them more. Recognising that tertiary education is probably becoming more of a necessity – whether that is at ITE, polytechnic or University – for many families, especially low- and middle-income families whose children may be going to polytechnic or ITE, the expanded availability of bursaries will be very welcome.
Let me just wrap up on a final note on how this Budget works through a financial perspective. I think we are running a very modest deficit in this Budget but that is more or less catered for by our recent surpluses. So, I do not think that is a major concern.
Conceptually, I think the idea that we can fund a package as broad-ranging as the Pioneer Generation Package from a single year's Budget is exceptional. It also shows that we are still committed to fiscal discipline. Even as we become more compassionate and spend more on social spending, we should still maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline as that will allow the future generations to not have to worry about carrying the burden of the past.
Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, over the past few years, Singaporeans have faced increasing strain with the growing cost of living and
Page: 58
deepening income inequality. This year's Budget's focus on ensuring strong support, particularly for the elderly through the Pioneer Generation Package, as well as strengthening overall social safety nets are a step in the right direction towards easing the financial burden on many Singaporeans. I welcome the Pioneer Generation Package and, at the same time, I would like to recommend several other areas for the Government to consider addressing in the Budget, specifically caregiver support, more efforts into encouraging flexible work arrangements, as well as equalising support for single parents.
The Pioneer Generation Package, better known as PGP, although it may be belated, is welcomed. For many years, Singaporeans have been calling for more measures to take care of our Pioneer Generation, whose hard work and sacrifices have led us to the country we have today. This package, which was designed to honour and recognise the Pioneer Generation for their significant contributions in the early days of our nation-building, rightfully focuses primarily on healthcare affordability.
For elderly Singaporeans, being able to manage their healthcare costs has always been one of their greatest concerns.
It is heartening to note that means-testing is not required for the pioneer to qualify for the Package, so that a wider range of our senior citizens can get the support they need for their medical care.
In the Deputy Prime Minister's Budget Statement, he mentioned that there will be more flexibility to use the MediSave for a range of outpatient treatments. A more flexible use of MediSave would greatly benefit the elderly, since many of them may not suffer from an approved chronic condition, but have other illnesses that require costly long-term care and constant medical attention, a point I brought up in the last COS and also previously during the By-election. I hope to see a wider range of medication, outpatient treatments and perhaps early screening tests to be included into the usage of MediSave. The Workers' Party has also consistently called for Singaporeans above the age of 75 to be allowed to withdraw from MediSave for any medical care without restrictions. I look forward to hearing more details from the Ministry during COS.
Given the high cost of healthcare today, as well as the propensity for the elderly to fall sick as they get older, I welcome the main focus of the Pioneer Generation Package on easing the healthcare burden.
Page: 59
However, at the same time, we should take a more holistic view of supporting our Pioneer Generation. The policy framework for our Pioneer Generation should also consider how we can enable our pioneers and the elderly to lead a more meaningful life in times of good health. After all, with today's healthcare standards, many of our elderly look forward to more years of good health post-retirement than they used to before. Today, we have a number of schemes and activities to encourage active ageing, but at the same time there is more we can do to enhance retirement activities to keep our pioneers active, independent and happy. A healthy and stimulating social life is, in fact, a form of preventive healthcare.
One recommendation to extend the PGP beyond healthcare would be to implement a discount scheme or a \"PGP Pass\" for the elderly to access major tourist attractions for free or places of entertainment for a discount.
The United States and Ireland, for example, have implemented \"senior passes\" or \"Passports for Leisure\" for the elderly, entitling them to special discounts and access to state leisure and recreational facilities as well as private sector attractions.
Our pioneers have built Singapore to what it is today, and as part of how we honour them, we should make Singapore and its many attractions accessible so that they can spend their retirement time enjoying landmarks of Singapore's success.
In addition, while the PGP is warmly welcomed for the current Pioneer Generation, the challenges our Pioneer Generation faces today will be the challenges our ageing population will continue to face going forward and this will need to be continually addressed by the Government, beyond the Pioneer Generation of citizens. Madam, I will continue my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I would like to remind everyone not to forget another group of people. They take care of the household every day, looking after their children, and some even have to take care of parents who are staying with them. They are the caregivers in our families. They include grandparents that take care of their grandchildren, housewives, stay-at-home husbands and also those who take care of family members who are unwell.
This group of people work round the clock, from morning until night. It is a thankless job that is both physically and mentally challenging, and one that puts
Page: 60
them in a financially disadvantaged position. This is because they devote all their time to care for their family, and are unable to work full-time. At best, they can only take on a part-time job.
The effort that they put in is no less than those at the workplace. However, they are often neglected. Take this Budget, for example, none of them will benefit from it directly. For this \"job\", they get no recognition, no salary, no bonus, no CPF and no tax relief.
These caregivers are important pillars of our families. Their sacrifice and the important role they play are often overlooked by society. Currently, the Government offers tax relief to help their families, for example, parent relief and child relief. These are good measures but they are indirect assistance. Moreover, although we now offer child relief for working mothers, mothers who leave the workforce to look after their children do not enjoy similar benefits.
Therefore, I urge the Government to provide direct economic assistance to this group of people. I will put up my suggestions during the COS debate.
(In English): Next, I would like to touch on measures to help individuals better balance their work and family commitments. We have talked extensively about the need to institutionalise worklife balance to address our current low fertility rates and the stress that balancing careers and families have, especially on mothers.
Despite the Government's efforts to encourage this through Flexi! Works schemes, it seems that more needs to be done to change the mindset of employers. Reports have shown that flexible work arrangements can drive productivity and the key to this is adopting the right technology infrastructure to facilitate this.
As part of the Budget recommendations, the Deputy Prime Minister outlined the ICT for Productivity and Growth (IPG) programme to accelerate the adoption of ICT solutions. I would like to recommend that solutions that can enable flexible work policies should be featured as approved solutions. I believe there is no better time than now for companies to make these ICT investments to enable flexi-work. Companies can take full advantage of the PIC grants and other available schemes to make the investment.
Page: 61
Lastly, an area I had hoped the Budget would consider this year is equalising support for single parents.
The Government made the right step in equalising childcare and infant care leave last year. I was, however, disappointed to hear no specific move this year to equalise other support measures that married mothers have, including maternity leave, housing support, Baby Bonus and the Parenthood Tax Rebate.
The Budget rightfully focuses on ways to reduce income inequality in society. As such, it is important to address specific segments of society that are \"at risk\" of falling behind and look at how the Government can provide assistance to ensure the chances of this happening are reduced, especially when it comes to children.
Many studies have shown that children from single-parent households have lower economic mobility than children born to married parents. There are many factors that contribute to this, from a loving dual-parent family structure being most ideal for the emotional and social development of a child, to the single parent's financial constraints that limit what he or she can provide for the child to help the child get a better start in life.
These challenges are all the more why single parents should be better supported in Singapore. While we want to encourage two-parent families under the institution of marriage, we must also have ways to provide support to single parents so that their children start out on a more equal footing, despite their circumstances.
Madam, the ones who inevitably suffer the most because of these measures are the children of single parents. Our focus when addressing the issue of single parent households should be on the child, and we should not be punishing a child for whatever actions we deem his or her parents to have committed.
In conclusion, I welcome the Pioneer Generation Package. I would love to see more to be done to let our pioneers enjoy their retirement and enjoy the fruits of their labour. I would elaborate more during the Committee of Supply debate on the three issues I have brought up in this speech, specifically, caregivers, worklife balance and single parents.
Page: 62
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, as a society and young nation, we have been debating over our national identity, our collective values and our shared vision for this home of ours. We crave for and have searched hard for our nation's soul as we fear losing ourselves in our apparently relentless pursuit of economic growth. It is in this context that I am deeply heartened by this year's Budget.
Budget 2014 is one that I would describe as \"soulful\", not sorrowful, but soulful because it offers much positivity and hope for our future. The measures announced, in particular the social provisions, are underpinned by important Asian values that I believe many Singaporeans till today still hold dear.
One such value that is especially salient is to remember our roots and show gratitude even if it is not demanded. We always use this term in Chinese: \"饮水思源\". The Pioneer Generation Package is a revolutionary one. Firstly, there has never been a package with the intent of honouring an entire generation of Singaporeans who have given the prime of their lives to build modern Singapore; secondly, this package does not have means testing which is rare for Singapore where we are used to the idea of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor; thirdly, it addresses right on target the prevalent fear of healthcare costs amongst our old.
Hence, the package came as a pleasant surprise to many. While engaging the ground, I have received many heartening comments. Some PG Singaporeans said they had never expected to be recognised or honoured in their lifetime because they had deemed themselves to be ordinary Singaporeans – ordinary but great in our hearts. Others who have a keen sense of humour even joked in Hokkien that they are finally \"gam wan\" to admit that they are old. So, they tell me, \"我终于认了\"; they finally admit to being old. Even non-PG Singaporeans have so far expressed support for the PG package, though some wished they had been born earlier.
This package is generous and will benefit the PG Singaporeans till the end of their life journey. This also means a whopping national expenditure of $8 billion, probably not something that we can sustain all the time but I believe it is worth it. This huge fiscal commitment is something that is worth it. For the generation who had done so much for today's Singapore, we who are younger need to ask ourselves: how much is this generation of young Singaporeans willing to give of ourselves to support our older generation, especially those who had come from the founding generation of modern Singapore during the Independence? I had made the same statement during the Opening of
Page: 63
Parliament debate in 2011 and called for bold steps in offering free basic public healthcare for our old. With this PG package, I can say certainly and gladly that the Government is, indeed, looking after our pioneers.
I support the PG package, but I would also like to urge the Government to consider whether the PG package should solely focus on healthcare and whether there could be a cash component as well, pretty much echoing some of our Members of this House had said earlier. One of the key issues that retirees face is cashflow management. They have assets locked up in the form of housing or CPF savings with restrictions on the usage. While the generous subsidies will mean less out of pocket expenses for the pioneers, which will in turn increase disposable income, this may not apply to those who are in good physical but poor financial health. Hence, could the Government consider allowing the pioneers to decide whether a particular year's MediSave top-up be converted into a cash voucher for, say, S&CC and utilities bill payments? In terms of fiscal expenditure, there is no impact – Government will still pay out the same amount but, to the pioneers, it will mean so much as there is more flexibility and more means to resolve their very pressing needs.
All said, it is highly commendable for the Government to exercise moral leadership in honouring and caring for our PG – our elders. It is a strong signal to the younger generation that this value of honouring our elders is still precious to our nation and, hopefully, this value will endure many more generations to come. However, the entire society and nation have to internalise and exemplify such a value. For instance, we cannot outsource filial piety or gratitude to our pioneers to the Government and the Government alone. If so, we, as individuals, will truly be soulless beings who see ourselves as having no stake in this land we call home.
Hence, beyond the PG package, beyond what the Government can offer, be it in passport format or whatever schemes that we can offer, and beyond mere words in and outside of this House, I urge all Singaporeans to come together and honour our PG in tangible ways. For example, reach out to them, speak with them, keep them company, collect their stories, organise and take part in programmes that will engage them meaningfully. And perhaps even to bring them on organised trips – bring them to Istana which has such historical meaning to our context that I believe that the Pioneer Generation will feel a deep sense of pride because they had a very strong role, a very big part to play in building modern Singapore. So, these actions, infused with a human touch, will certainly be valued more than just dollars and cents.
Page: 64
Just as importantly, now that our pioneers have gifted us with such a wonderful legacy, such a robust foundation, we as younger Singaporeans must rise to the occasion and embrace the challenges that lay ahead of us with optimism and a steel mind, and build upon what our pioneers have given us and do them proud. We can, we must and we will.
The second value that I would like to talk about is promoting self-reliance and helping the vulnerable so that we all can have a more equal footing in life. It is therefore no surprise that this year's Budget continues to dedicate a significant portion towards helping the low-income. However, what is pleasantly surprising is that there are also more benefits for the middle-income families as compared with past years' Budgets.
Families continue to form the bedrock of our society and nation. Many Singaporeans also believe in the value of families. However, there is one group of Singaporean families whom I think have been neglected and who deserve help too. I am referring to the low-income Singaporean families with foreign spouses. Let me give some examples, some cases, some real families whom I have met on the ground.
First one, Mr Bose. He is in his 50s. He has given the prime years of his life to the SAF. Unfortunately, he sustained injuries during service and had to retire from the service. Since then, it has been very difficult for him to hold down a proper job. Now, in his 50s, he needs someone to care for him and keep him company. A few years ago, he married a Malaysian about his age, willing to care for him, willing to be there for him. However, they found it difficult to stay together as his wife cannot even attain a Long-Term Visit Pass despite years of appeal.
In another case, Mr Raffi, in his 40s, married an Indonesian lady. They have children together who are Singaporeans. They tried many times but could not get a permanent stay for her. He worked hard and would have been able to get by but, having to support his entire family on his own and having to bear the travelling costs incurred by the wife being a foreigner, the financial burden that he has to bear inevitably has increased.
There are many more of such examples, all of them feel very frustrated. None of these Singaporeans have so far thought of abandoning their foreign spouses, though some wondered if they should have given up their Singapore citizenship so as to go overseas to be with their foreign spouses, so that their
Page: 65
family can be whole.
The Government would not bat an eyelid in dishing out the subsidies had the wife been born in Singapore. The Government and general public would have also been supportive of giving more help to such low-income Singaporean families so that they can break out of the poverty cycle, so that their Singaporean children can have their best shot in life. So, why not recognise these foreign spouses who are legally married to Singaporeans? Let them have some certainty of stay in Singapore with an immigration progression roadmap with milestones defined, so that the foreign spouses and their families know what are expected of them and plan their lives accordingly. Singaporeans have chosen them to share their lives with and these foreign spouses have also chosen to give up on their homelands to be part of Singapore. Moreover, should they have children, their children will be most likely born as Singaporeans given that at least one parent is a Singapore citizen. I will speak more on this during the COS but I do implore the Government to pay more attention to this group of Singaporean families, who are deserving of our support too.
The third value is about continuous learning and improvement. I think many Singaporeans, including SME bosses, understand the need for continuous improvement, so that we can remain competitive. However, many SMEs are suffering from economic restructuring, and especially from manpower constraints. Reduction in foreign manpower is not reversible at least for some time to come. So, what else can the Government do?
I urge the Government to not just focus on the larger enterprises, but to extend help to the small enterprises too, especially those owned or run by people who tend to be older and had little education. They are the ones who are most squeezed, suffocated and crying for help.
There are many schemes to enable innovation and increase productivity for SMEs – ranging from PIC that covers items such as IT and infrastructure investments to debt and equity financing schemes, which I would like to think it is to encourage SMEs to take more risk and take on positive return projects both locally as part of the transformation or to venture overseas where it is more viable and where there is a bigger market for them. In a way, it is to find an alternate way out. While offering lots of money and help options, I wonder how effective these are in helping the SMEs to transform, especially the small enterprises. Many do not have the capacity to find out possible innovations or best practices that they can use to improve productivity and reduce reliance on manpower, both foreign and local. Many of these small enterprise bosses work
Page: 66
from dawn to dusk and had little education or the know-how to transform.
Hence, how will the Government hand-hold them through this journey? For example, helping them with horizon scanning of suitable innovations/technologies/best practices, hand-holding them through the implementation of these improvements, and helping them to develop new niche areas and move into growth industries. For those who eventually cannot sustain their businesses, will the Government consider an Employment Guarantee programme, somewhat similar to European's Youth Guarantee programme, for the displaced SME owners and staff so as to minimise the pain and structural unemployment? We already have very good programmes and funding in place. So, this guarantee programme, from my point of view, is merely an additional and synergistic step of ensuring that these displaced workers and owners will not be left in the lurch.
Madam, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Respected Speaker, with this year's Budget, the Government has further reiterated the values of continuous improvement through various assistance schemes to encourage enterprises to transform. However, due to labour shortage and high operating costs, many SMEs are still suffering, in particular, the more traditional and small-scale businesses. This is because many of these owners are relatively older with lower education background. And due to the small size of their businesses, they are unable to meet MOM's dependency ratio and have to manage most of the work on their own. Some of them even have to work from dawn to dusk. When they are so exhausted from their work, requiring them to broaden their horizon, search for new technologies and transform their businesses is, indeed, mission impossible.
In my constituency, when I speak with shop owners in my neighbourhood, I would hear of the many difficulties they face. One owner of a small bakery, for example, shared that his business is a micro business. He was unable to attract local workers to work for him, but he could not hire foreign workers as he was unable to meet MOM's dependency ratio given his scale. As a result, he had to handle everything himself. I asked if he had considered making use of the Government incentive programmes to increase his productivity via process re-engineering or innovative technologies. He said he would very much like to respond to the Government's call but he did not know of the possible technologies to leverage on and what examples he could learn from overseas. He simply did not know where to start. Moreover, his poor command of English and the prospect of having to navigate through arduous application procedures
Page: 67
cause much fear in him.
Therefore, I hope that the Government would pay more attention to help these small businesses. Besides pumping in large sums of money, it is very important to assist and guide SMEs closely. Economic transformation is excruciatingly painful. If you succeed, you will be reborn and emerge strongly. But if you fail, you lose everything, including your livelihood. To lessen the amount of pain and failure in the transformation, and to encourage more companies to take bold steps to try, could the Government consider an \"employment guarantee\" programme to ensure that business owners and their employees will be guaranteed of training and a job, should they fail in the transformation process. This will provide safeguards for the business owners, workers and their families. It will also allow a redeployment of manpower to companies or emerging sectors which have the potential to grow.
(In English): The Budget has a lot to offer this year. So, what is next? People need to know what the Government has to offer to help those in need. Many locals and foreigners remain unaware or have only half-understood what we do in Singapore. A recent article published on 28 February 2014 in The Straits Times revealed the results of a poll, indicating that most Singaporeans know of the assistance schemes and benefits available but do not know if they did indeed receive the subsidies.
In another example which was also cited by fellow hon Member Ms Irene Ng, BBC recently on 27 February 2014 wrote about how low-income families get by in Singapore. This article was shared by many on Facebook and social media, and there were some chatter about it. The intent of highlighting the needy is commendable and we will all need to work hard to better help vulnerable Singaporeans. I cannot help but notice that some of the problems highlighted may already have available solutions.
For instance, I would have thought that MediFund/ MediFund Junior is available to help the child, in the article, with her asthma treatment and the young mother of six need not have to fret over it. Hence, I wonder if it is because we have not communicated enough and reached out enough to fellow Singaporeans who are often too trapped in their daily work, because they are so worried about their day-to-day living expenses, whether they are able to afford their expenses and that is why they have not had the capacity to really find out what is available to them.
Page: 68
If it is so, it is a pity because we have done so much, spent so much and yet, we as the Government have failed at the very last mile – that is, making sure that people know what they can tap on so that the goodwill will not go to waste.
Let us not allow myths or half-truths to take root in our society and hijack the real agenda of our Government. That is to help Singaporeans to have a better quality of life. Therefore, I hope the Government will set aside sufficient resources to ensure that we complete this very last mile and do it well so that the target group of Singaporeans will indeed benefit.
Finally, I would like to conclude. The generosity of the Budget 2014, especially towards our elders, is made possible by years of contributions by Singaporeans and prudence in our governance. More importantly, it is the values that we are exemplifying through this Budget that I find heartening. As our society moves towards self-actualisation, this Budget, which I find soulful, is a big step in the right direction. With that, I support the Budget.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, I would like to commend the Finance Minister for presenting a Budget that signals the Government's concern for the people and far-sighted vision for Singapore's progress. It is a kind-hearted Budget and focuses on our nation's economic development so that we can live comfortably in the present and the future. It is a Budget that is based on the people's needs.
The benefits from this year's Budget cover various sectors including the pioneer generation, and we should be thankful that the Singapore Government is kind to the people and thinks of ways to help the people manage the ever rising costs of living. However, I hope that the businesses will not take advantage of the situation by increasing the price of goods multi-fold.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As our society ages, many Singaporeans are concerned about the affordability of healthcare. This year's Budget provided much assistance in this area. With the generous Pioneer Generation Package, our elderly residents will no longer need to worry about being sick. When falling sick, they should just go to see the doctor without a second thought. This is, indeed, the best way to honour our
Page: 69
pioneers. I applaud the Government for introducing this package to cover all seniors who were 16 at the time of Independence, without any means- testing. This is very heart-warming. No matter what economic outlook will be in the future, the Government is committed by setting aside a sum to fund the Pioneer Generation Package to show our appreciation for the pioneers – $8 billion is no small sum!
I also strongly support the move which allows senior Singaporeans to use their MediSave more flexibly for outpatient treatment. Last year in Parliament, I suggested that Singaporeans be allowed to use MediSave to buy hearing aid, because a good hearing aid could cost over $1,000. The Minister for Health replied that if people needed help, they could look for help from the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC). However, AIC has income ceiling requirements. Not every Singaporean is eligible.
Last Sunday, I met a 75-year-old resident. He told me that every month he has to spend $370 on drugs to prevent stroke. Some residents said that they needed to buy medicines to treat diabetes. Do they all need to go AIC? If they have to wait for AIC's approval and it is not given, they will die.
Mdm Speaker, besides providing protection for the pioneer generation, the younger generation with families will also benefit. Bursaries will be increased, and the lower-middle income families can also qualify for KiFAS. Lower-income families now only need to pay $3 per month for kindergarten fees. Middle-income families will only need to pay $85 per month. Where can you find such cheap kindergarten fees in the world?
Another highlight is the CPF contribution rate for older workers being raised by 1%. This Budget is centred on Singaporeans and has addressed the various issues Singaporeans are concerned about. It is a booster for all, and people feel very pleased.
However, I feel what the pioneers need most is care and concern. Hence, I would like to urge all Singaporeans to show the pioneers more concern. In the morning or when getting off from work, when you get on the MRT or bus, you, being the younger generation, should not just stare at your computers or phones; you should look out for the seniors standing around you and give up your seat for them. When getting into the lift, do not rush and push ahead. Some residents told me, \"MP, it is really good to install lifts at the Khatib station, but there are always students who fight into the lift with us\". I hope Singaporeans can show more respect and care for our pioneers, so that the seniors can enjoy
Page: 70
their golden years with peace of mind.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, now I would like to speak on businesses, in particular, SMEs. I am particularly relieved for the SMEs, who are now getting the assistance that they have been crying out for. Business operators had many items on their wish list answered, including the extension of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme which I had brought up in Parliament before. The Budget's PIC+ was a pleasant surprise and a welcomed bonus.
Also, I am happy to note that the maximum period of employment for R1 Work Permit Holders has been increased from 18 years to 22 years. Skilled workers are invaluable to us.
I must point out that despite the generous assistance afforded to SMEs, there are many who are still facing problems with their finances. We need to actively engage the people as the implementation and delivery is just as important as the offering. Many companies, especially the smaller ones, still do not know how to go about getting the help from Government. The PIC sounds great on paper, but my sense is that it is not achieving its full potential in giving a leg up to more SMEs. With PIC and other schemes targeted at SMEs, the funds do not get disbursed promptly.
After the announcement of Budget, I received many emails from SMEs' bosses. I would give you some examples. Company A told me that they applied to IRAS for 60% of $82,560 in July last year, and IRAS approved the last two items and disbursed $33,592.20 plus $7,000 PIC Bonus to them in January this year. They applied in July last year, and got approved in January this year. That is six months.
Another example – Company B applied to IRAS for 60% of $63,551 in June last year. IRAS approved and disbursed $33,130.60 plus $15,000 PIC bonus to them on January 2014. Applied in June last year, and got approved and disbursed in January this year. It is seven months.
It can take even longer if there are some queries and \"ding dong\" in their applications. For smaller SMEs, this is very difficult on their cash flow. Worse is they may sometimes go belly up before they receive their funds. As a consequence, some SMEs may be afraid to take the plunge and instead opted for the conservative approach. They turn a deaf ear to the call for innovation and choose to march on-the-spot, until they get edged out by the competition.
Page: 71
Therefore, I hope more can be done to reduce the red tape on the payout process. Perhaps consultants can be made available to SMEs, especially for the new applicants, to prevent any undue delay in the verification and inspection processes.
Additionally, for SMEs with a convincing proposal of innovative solutions that require a large amount of resources, they could perhaps be considered for an earlier payout or even a partial payout before they launch their project.
The cost of business is ballooning because of the higher foreign worker levies, tighter labour market and unexplained rejection of Work Permits and foreign worker applications, and even the costs of dormitory accommodation have escalated. Many smaller construction companies feel insecure with the new policy to increase the foreign worker levies from $600 to $700 in July 2016 for Basic Skilled (R2) Work Permit Holders. The Government's decision to announce it two years in advance is appreciated, but that does not allay the fear that these businesses will experience increase in operation costs. Adding on to the problem is the fact that higher skilled workers are harder to come by. This then gives rise to worries of manpower shortage to complete projects should they not be able to afford the wages.
The story does not end here. The foreign workers on S Pass and EP are taking advantage of the tight labour market to job hop. I have a friend who told me that her engineer left her for another job with $1,000 increment. Two months later, this same engineer called up my friend and said, \"Boss, do you want me back or not? I am willing to come back, but give me another $1,000 increment\".
MOM can specify that Work Permit holders are not allowed to marry Singaporeans. I fail to understand why can MOM not put a minimum duration, for example, two years, with the employer who applied the S Pass or EP. Less job hopping also means higher productivity.
Another feedback about PIC: it is currently eligible only to firms that fulfil the three local employees condition. In an era when we are encouraging productivity and entrepreneurship, it does not make sense that we are penalising firms for their size, which is not indicative of strength. In fact, many world-renowned corporations started from two-person teams or even solo, including Apple, eBay and Whole Foods Market. The smaller and newer companies are the ones that need more help.
Page: 72
A resident gave me feedback about his company, Company K. He applied to IRAS for 60% of $14,031 in November last year and IRAS rejected it in January this year because he had less than three CPF staff. From what I see, only in October and December, the company did not qualify or meet this requirement. But if we were to add in the directors, there were three for those two months.
I wonder if the Government can consider that so long over the whole year they have most of the months with three CPF staff, it is fine. Not only that, in most SMEs, there can be three or four of the staff who are all directors. But directors are not considered as the part of the minimum three CPF staff. Why? To me, I think that if there are three like-minded friends who are willing to take the plunge, is it not better than employing three staff? I would like to appeal to the Government to make the PIC accessible to all, regardless of the number of CPF staff.
I would like to give another example of good policy, poor implementation. I have a resident who told me that they do business in Malaysia and, therefore, they would like to send their staff to be trained in the Malay language. They were looking for Malay language courses. So, they called up WDA, looked through the website, talked to the staff and they were told that there was no such funding. But my resident says that they have funding for Japanese language. Is this not very strange – we have funding for foreign language, but we do not have funding for our own National Language? With the command of Malay language, it will definitely help us to do business with our neighbouring countries, not just Malaysia, also Indonesia. So, this is another example.
Last but not least, I am disappointed that there were retailers who cashed in on the hike in liquor duty by imposing an increase of as much as $1.30 for a bottle of beer. I was told that a cup of kopi-O went up by 20-30 cents per cup when the price of sugar went up by the same amount per kg. Sugar went up by 20-30 cents per kg, one cup of coffee also went up by 20-30 cents. Is this in the same proportion? Is this profiteering?
Talking about profiteering, I would like to turn to the recent hot topic among the construction industry – granite. The Government has made the right move in stockpiling sand and granite so that our public housing and infrastructure construction are not disrupted. As a small country with hardly any natural resources, we are highly vulnerable to the actions and decisions of our neighbouring countries. The Indonesian government banned the export of a wide range of minerals worldwide on 12 January, leaving several local construction projects in limbo. This is an issue that not even diplomacy could resolve. And this is not the first time it has happened. For example, last year,
Page: 73
Malaysia banned the export of five types of fish to us for two months, and in 1997, Indonesia banned the export of sand, which led to price surges for sand from Malaysia. The relationship with our neighbouring countries is very delicate. If I may put it in Hokkien, \"sar jit hong, si jit hor\", that means, \"three days, wind; four days, rain\". It is unpredictable!
I applaud the Government's action in releasing the stockpile to solve the problem temporarily. But all good intentions were wiped out when MND decided to up the price from $25 to $50 per tonne. And people in the industry are asking: is the Government also profiteering? Of course not; very good. Understandably, there is a need to discourage zealous purchasing from the construction companies, but surely there are better ways to go about this, such as putting a quantity limit or asking them to replenish the stock from their own source. We help them when they have difficulty – I can lend you, but please return to me. Perhaps, we can also specify when they must return. I think they will be much more appreciative. With that, I support the Budget.
Mdm Speaker: I was waiting for your Tamil speech, Er Dr Lee. Maybe next Budget. Mrs Lina Chiam.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, Budget 2014 remains much like last year's, with more generous topping up of perks for all sectors in Singapore. Nevertheless, the Singapore People's Party is encouraged to hear about the Pioneer Generation Package, honouring the contributions of the pioneers of Singapore. But we also must not forget the pioneers that had passed on. The hard work of the older generations in building up a modern and flourishing nation is finally recognised. This recognition is long overdue. With that, the SPP supports the Pioneer Generation Package.
Much as we would like the concept of the Pioneer Generation Package, we need to be clear that not everyone in that age bracket will enjoy its benefits. I note that those not on CHAS will now qualify – this includes many Singaporeans. However, there are enhanced benefits for those under CHAS. This means that there are in effect two tiers of support for Singaporeans within that age bracket. We hope the Minister for Health will provide more details of the CHAS benefits at the COS.
We have questions about the Package – what happens when a person is unable to pay his or her medical bill even after the subsidies are counted? Does
Page: 74
he have to apply under MediFund? What is the rationale to top up MediSave, which can be wiped out by just one visit to the hospital? Why not top up directly to pay the person's MediShield Life premiums?
We should involve the elderly by setting the goals they desire for the phase of their lives to see what is appropriate, especially if they are illiterate. We should also make sure the elderly in particular are made aware of the schemes of the Pioneer Generation Package, which may be too complex to them. How are we going to engage and bring awareness to this group of people who are unclear about aid schemes and benefits to utilise this Pioneer Generation Package? I would suggest that the Government make use of the media through advertisement in newspapers, trains, taxis, buses, television, radio talks, websites, Facebooks and others, in order to reach them.
Those that qualify for the Pioneer Generation Package are not all of the same age. They would also have different needs. Most importantly, utilisation of the package should be driven by sound decision and advice, focused on the quality of life for the recipient at his or her particular stage of life.
In time, I think we should allow the use of MediSave for home care. This will also result in cost savings for the Government. During the rehabilitation period, currently, patients stay in hospital beds or move to rehab centres. But if we can move a portion of them to their homes and cover some services required at home – such as nurses/doctors' visits and rental of equipment – we can lighten the load and not require so many new beds in our hospitals. The system should make use of primary and community care first and the hospital is used only when illness is beyond the expertise of primary care to prevent a bed crunch.
Some people are concerned that MediShield would lead to increased risk and the young will pay more premiums. The safeguard against that is for the utilisation to be driven by sound medical judgement based on transparency of data, good ethics and professionalism to prevent unnecessary treatments and fair pricing for the patient's best interest.
I would like to turn to the other aspects of Budget 2014.
Going beyond GST vouchers. There is nothing new with the GST vouchers – we have them almost every year. While this is a good initiative, the SPP feels that at this point in the evolution of the socio-economic needs of Singaporeans, the Government must take a step to go beyond subsidies and small-scale
Page: 75
redistribution of money. Instead, the SPP feels that the Government's accountability to its people must be based on the following indicators: firstly, the percentage of Singaporeans employed in newly created jobs; secondly, the median pay of Singaporeans versus our foreign counterparts; and thirdly, what incentives are in place to motivate companies to help meet the indicators above.
Going beyond acronyms. Every year, the Government introduces many new initiatives that are accompanied by a slew of acronyms. This year, there are \"iSPRINT\", \"IPG\" and many more interesting names. Besides them being easy to remember, these names need to go beyond that. We need to look closely and examine the follow-through of these initiatives. We need to know if they have been successful or not in terms of what they set out to achieve. We cannot coin new acronyms annually only to be forgotten in the end. For example, a few months ago, it was announced that more than $400 million was to be set aside for the Future of Manufacturing initiative. The SPP would like to know what is the outcome of such exciting initiatives rather than to see new initiatives being introduced.
Singapore versus the world: how advanced are we actually? The Finance Minister raised the example of the success of the online tailoring company, Marcella. We applaud Marcella's successful business model. But, in reality, online tailoring businesses, and other interesting retail ideas, are not new and unique to Singapore. Many countries with an even more innovative and competitive retail sector have already developed such business ideas at least five to seven years ago.
What we would like to stress is that Singapore needs more substantial and substantive innovation breakthroughs to eventually match the capabilities in other advanced economies. We may even have to take the hard decision to change our mindsets and restructure our economy to become more robust and dynamic to compete in today's world. This brings us to the idea of how we need to urgently address the concerns and worries of Singaporeans today.
Our vision: look further ahead to meet Singaporeans' needs today. Solving the issues Singaporeans are now grappling with – finding jobs, dealing with the high cost of living, overcrowding – boils down to one thing, economic transformation.
Budget 2014 does not address this elephant in the room: how does Singapore transform itself economically and socially in order to survive the next 50 years? The Finance Minister assumes that some economic sectors can
Page: 76
transform themselves effectively, away from an over-reliance on cheap labour. But this does not seem to be the case.
Our suggestion would be for Singapore to encourage more productive, innovative and cutting edge foreign companies to come in to collaborate and encourage local companies to build up our productivity through competition. There will then be limited growth for companies that are overly reliant on low-wage foreign labour. We have a few of these companies in the marine industry, for instance.
To dream of a Singapore that will last beyond the next 50 years, we need to build on what we have always had – our human capital. We need to continue to invest in our people and educate them for the future. Our education system has to be robust and dynamic to meet the challenges ahead.
Productivity & Innovation Credit (PIC): since 2011, more than $1 billion in Productivity & Innovation Credit benefits have been disbursed. However, our productivity growth continues to be weak, especially in the construction and marine sector. These are the most critical sectors to improve on. They create the highest social costs for Singaporeans; low-skilled foreign workers living in HDB flats, low technology manufacturing leading to more than necessary workers in Singapore.
We raised the PIC for SMEs, but I am not sure how exactly this will help productivity growth unless we mandate adoption of leaner processes. This is unclear. Do we continue to throw money without mandating improvements? There are many cases where SMEs use the PIC for laptops. I consider this a form of dead-weight loss.
International competitiveness and productivity drive for SMEs: the focus on productivity and innovation for firms to become more competitive is valid. But subsidies do not adequately help to achieve this outcome.
Competition is a more effective driver for productivity. In a sector with more competition, firms are driven to outperform one another, optimising their supply chain and bottom line. Therefore, by focusing on what subsidies to dish out during the Budget, we may be weakening the competitiveness of firms. The bottom performing firms should be allowed to be restructured or closed down.
To induce competition, we need to bring in highly productive firms in low productivity sectors, such as construction and retail services. These firms will
Page: 77
help restore the required productivity levels over time. Consolidation among weaker firms must take place to justify productivity investments.
In terms of awarding productivity incentives, Government should carefully select which firms to help. Productivity incentives should not be positioned as subsidies. The firms with low productivity should not be kept alive on drip. Only firms with concrete productivity plans should be awarded support. This may be a harsh policy, but I prefer to allow MOM and community support, such as MPS, to address the loss of income.
More of our SMEs need to expose themselves to international competition. There are natural limits to growth in an economy with a small domestic sector. It is, ultimately, only by expanding into overseas markets that our SMEs will be able to shift their production frontiers.
CPF hike: some SMEs have raised concerns that they will be affected by the hike in CPF contributions for older workers. One way to increase help for smaller companies could be for the reliefs to be tax-exempt for such small and medium-sized firms. That way, they would not have to pay tax on the employment credits when they get them.
Information and communications technology (ICT): in the adoption plan for ICT, could the Government be mistaken about the technology roadmap? Getting onto the high speed bandwagon requires more than subsidising fibre broadband. Firstly, fibre broadband is not expensive. Secondly, we should introduce more competition in the telco sector to bring prices down. Subsidising an already cheap service does not seem logical. Perhaps, we should consider subsidising the employment of local workers.
We would also propose that the Government introduce mandatory licence and certification locally. This is a form of non-tariff barrier for local Singaporeans. Regulatory boards can prioritise the licensing for locals. In this way, Singapore will continue to fulfil international obligations and, at the same time, provide support for locals. We need policy innovation badly.
Transport: our MRT lines failed badly over the last five years. We cannot simply focus on building new lines. That is important. Existing lines need to be transformed. We need to include last-mile connectivity of suburban areas, such as Loyang, Bukit Panjang, Joo Koon and other under-served areas.
Page: 78
Our party is not against further fare hikes. But the existing service needs to be reasonable before the operator introduces further hikes.
Healthcare: family caregivers are the unsung heroes who serve as an inspiration to those whose lives they touch. On top of the $1,200 cash received annually, they should also enjoy a MediSave top-up of between $100 and $200 annually, like any other worker aged above 55, as an enhanced benefit. Most caregivers are either housewives, who are either lowly-educated or holding part-time jobs.
According to a study entitled \"Mental health systems in countries: where are we now?\", Singapore has the lowest number of psychiatrists per 100,000 people among the high-income countries, at 2.3, and the lowest number of psychiatrist nurses per 100,000 people as well, at 10.4.
The World Health Organization had also said in the \"Mental health, resilience and inequalities\" report that individuals who have poor mental well-being have \"significantly psycho-social impairment and poorer physical health, and lower productivity\".
I know that the Government is rightly concerned about the capacity of our polyclinics, and this affects how cases of mental health are treated. To address the problem of capacity, we urge the Government to reprioritise the needs of Singaporeans, over and above that of medical tourism.
In conclusion, the SPP believes that innovation is the key for Singapore to survive. Innovation can start within the public sector. We look forward to a more creative Budget on further opportunities and vision in the next year as Singapore celebrates 50 years of Independence.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Eugene Tan.
Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget Statement. The economic and social planks of the Budget are not in opposition to each other. They are parts of an integral whole; both planks are cut from the same piece of wood. Quality growth is meaningless if it does not contribute to a fair and equitable society. Likewise, it would be hard to have a fair and equitable society if our economy does not provide the means to temper the mechanical and merciless workings of
Page: 79
capitalism.
Much has been said inside and outside of this House of the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP). I warmly welcome the PGP. I have written about the PGP as being the \"right thing to do\". As the centrepiece of the Budget, the PGP is a powerful statement of our nation-building. I see it as an intergenerational expression of gratitude, appreciation and commitment. It is intergenerational because it represents the current generation of Singaporeans making a commitment to the Pioneer Generation to care for them.
The PGP is a substantive long-term commitment and I support the Government's ring-fencing the hefty $8 billion cost by budgeting for its entire lifespan in this Budget. The PGP is not only going to be conditional on the Government of the day or dependent on future economic conditions. There is money set aside in the kitty to ensure that this endeavour to recognise, appreciate and care for the pioneers is not an illusory one.
Madam, this \"3-to-1\" generation of Singaporeans who have lived the \"Third World to First World Singapore Story\" represents the pioneering spirit of the founding generation of Singapore citizens who laid the foundational stone for Singapore's success with their grit, sacrifices, faith and hope for Singapore. The PGP would help with the increased cost of living, particularly healthcare costs, and reduce their concerns about healthcare cost at a stage in their lives when these expenses could be very demoralising.
We should not allow our pioneers to feel that the success of this country has passed them by. I have just read a BBC report that Singapore is now the most expensive city in the world. In this regard, corporate entities, small businesses, the People's Association, civil society would join in the effort and come out with their own PGPs.
My pre-Pioneer Generation grandparents who landed in Singapore as sojourners could not have foreseen that their subsequent decisions to sink their roots on this island would have made all the difference to the lives of their descendants. My Pioneer Generation parents, like many of their peers, worked tirelessly to ensure that their four children would have a better life.
And being in Singapore helped, as I think the outcomes would have been a lot more challenging and very different had they toiled in other countries. Much as my parents are contented to see that their efforts have paid off, the PGP is still the right thing to do. It will also supplement the efforts of Singaporeans
Page: 80
who do care, respect and cherish their elders.
Too often, we take things for granted and assume that Singapore citizenship is a birth right to a safe, comfortable life and a confident future. I do not pretend that life here is a bed of roses; we are far from being a perfect society. But, as a society and as a people, we try to rise above our constraints as an improbable nation-state. I sometimes wonder, if Singapore's fortunes were to take a prolonged and massive dip, whether my generation and the next will have the gumption, the guts, to stay on and fight for a better future, especially with the current generation of Singaporeans being better educated and certainly have more options than the Pioneer Generation.
Madam, I hope that, as a society and as individuals, we do what we can to ensure that the can-do spirit of the pioneers will continue to inspire us, and that we remain true to the values and aspirations in our national pledge. No Budget can will the powerful ethos and ethics of the Pioneer Generation and endow it in the current and future generations. As such, I hope we do what we can to ensure that we do not become poorer in spirit even as we make material progress.
The PGP has important salutary effects because it provides a tentative assurance that recognition, appreciation and care must be the hallmarks of this society. While future generations may not have the equivalent of the PGP, the PGP is precedent-setting nonetheless. Beyond individual and familial responsibility to care, the PGP recognises that the state has a vital role to play in caring for the elders, too, given the changing demographics and healthcare landscape.
Madam, raising the CPF employer contribution by one percentage point for all workers is another right thing to do. This unexpected increment is timely and I hope employers see this as the right thing to do and recognise their social responsibility to contribute to the healthcare needs of their Singaporean employees.
I am mindful of the considerations against raising employer contributions, in particular, the imperative to keep our wage costs competitive so as not to price ourselves out of the competition. However, there is never a good time to equalise the employer and employee CPF contribution rates. Furthermore, the imperative to be economically competitive is one that must be balanced against another abiding imperative – that of ensuring that the CPF institution is not compromised and that employers play their part in keeping the social compact
Page: 81
relevant. I would say that being economically competitive does not exclude the need for workers to have a fair bargain.
I am pleased that the Government has opted to bite the bullet now. The longer we delay equalising the contributions, the harder we make it for us to ensure Singaporeans' retirement adequacy. This is notwithstanding the fact that CPF should not be the only source of retirement funds. For most Singaporeans, it is the most important source of retirement funds.
I hope the Government will go further than raising the contribution rates for older workers by not differentiating CPF contribution rates on the basis of age. I find it rather ironic that on the one hand, we honour our elders but, on the other hand, discriminate against them. I appreciate the rationale of incentivising employers to hire older workers. However, the lower CPF contribution rates, purely on the basis of age, do not help the cause of older workers in an employment landscape where pay is increasingly based on performance, not seniority.
Madam, even as we look after the pioneers, I support the Budget's efforts to improve social mobility for the present generation. For my parents, education was and is vital. They did not have the educational opportunities that their children and grandchildren have but they were determined to have us receive the best possible education, including giving us all the support to take part in co-curricular activities. For my parents, who only completed Secondary education, education was for them a means to realise as best as we can our full potential and to take advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves. They did not want their relative social immobility to be inherited.
Thus, I warmly welcome the boosting of education subsidies, particularly for early childhood education. Investing early in our children's lives is one of the most impactful and beneficial investments a country can make for its future. The spending also represents a commitment to the future.
Research has clearly established that early childhood education can improve a child's learning ability, school performance and labour market productivity. Its return on investment is spread over a lifetime and we must recognise these long-term contributions as well as the intangible benefits. Further, such early investment is also cost-effective. This means that the earlier we invest, the greater the return – not just economically but also in terms of enabling our young to lead productive and fulfilling lives.
Page: 82
How we spend the money is crucial and how we use the money to seek collaboration with the private sector is also equally important. We should concentrate our efforts on making good quality early childhood education and childcare more accessible and affordable. In this regard, would the Government consider making kindergarten compulsory?
Government cannot do it alone to improve the quality of early childhood education and childcare, particularly in Singapore, where the private sector dominates this particular space. The private sector must, therefore, be included in the collaborative structured and enduring dialogue and effort between the Government and private sector to explore how to better align educational outcomes with the job market.
Further, this public-private partnership should also explore how to increase access to educational opportunities and to improve learning.
Madam, if our education system can engender a love of learning and service – values that the Pioneer Generation manifested – then we can be confident of developing quality people for the social sector. I, therefore, welcome the effort to invest more in the professionals from the social sector. As society becomes more complex and its social problems become more interdisciplinary in nature, often times requiring intervention, we need professionals who are well-equipped and who are empathetic to make a difference. Otherwise, whatever money that is put in to deal with the social problems is but a mere band aid. And it is here that we, as a society, must put equal emphasis on value as well as values.
Values will discipline how value is created. There are many ways up the mountain, and how we scale the summit is as important as summiting the mountain itself.
The Budget Statement speaks of the need to change our social norms to transform the economy, including a culture of mastery of the jobs. Even though we are in a knowledge-based economy, the idea of being a craftsman is timeless and something that we must urgently imbibe. This craftsman's attitude and mindset are vital in our economy to strive. This means setting the highest standards and doing our work well is also about imagining the larger categories of the greater good in general. Thus, the craftsman's realm embraces those of the educators – nurse, social worker, counsellor, bus driver, chef, doctor, lawyer, engineer and even the parliamentarian. In short, every one of us has to have
Page: 83
the craftsman's ethos in our work.
Our economic and educational policies must instil the values of a craftsman. This speaks of commitment to get the job done well, of continuing involvement to learning and honing of the skills so that the craft that we have is so deeply ingrained such that it becomes readily available and becomes almost automatic in its application.
Madam, productivity is not just about technology and upgrading of skills. It is very much a mindset as well. While I support the extension of the PIC scheme to 2018, I hope that the Government will seek to ensure that the scheme is not seen as Father Christmas giving out gifts throughout the year. It is quite common to hear of firms using PIC funds to purchase what I call the basic tools of trade, and of vendors inflating the prices of items purchased under the PIC scheme, and then sharing those gains with the buyers.
As my childhood friend who is a tax consultant puts it, \"If I am using an abacus and upgrade to a laptop, there is productivity improvement. But if I am already using a laptop and use PIC funds to buy a new laptop, then what exactly are the improvements that we are talking about?\" I appreciate the need to get businesses to restructure fast and, perhaps, also to accept some leakage. But we must be careful not to convey a simplistic message about productivity and the transformation of one's business.
I would have preferred for PIC grants to be provided if productivity improvements can be demonstrated. I agree that there is a need to balance the benefits that the PIC is intended to achieve with the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing the scheme. But I also hope that we are not throwing good money after vanity projects or funding electronic playthings like handphones and tablets that sometimes are bought primarily for personal use.
We should be concerned that while productivity has increased by 11% since we regained our economic restructuring four years ago, that was entirely due to the strong cyclical recovery in 2010, with little improvements since. I hope that the PIC and new PIC+ schemes, which are well intentioned, are not part of the problem.
Madam, we will continue to need foreign workers for many years to come. But given that the trade-offs are becoming more challenging, we must focus on the quality of the foreign workforce. Once quality is taken care of, I believe that the quantity of foreign workers will decline naturally. Hence, I welcome the
Page: 84
incentives provided by the new Marketplace Skills Recognition Framework for the construction sector. We need to look at the foreign manpower as an integral part of our workforce. Otherwise, the effort to restructure and transform the economy will be an exercise in frustration.
Madam, given that one-third of the workforce pay income tax, could the Government consider providing more grants and subsidies rather than tax relief? Take, for example, the enhancement of parent relief. One concern that I have is that with the low income tax rates, income taxpayers may not see the additional relief of up to $3,000 as being significant. But consider the non-taxpayers who support their parents and grandparents, they are probably in the majority and they do not benefit from these enhancements. Grants and reliefs could be more targeted and equitable so that all who support their parents and grandparents will have help. The distinction ought not to be whether one is paying income taxes.
The larger concern is whether the benefits to the taxpayers are rather direct, such as tax reliefs, while the benefits to non-taxpayers tend to be more indirect. So, top-ups in MediSave CPF accounts may not be used, while tax reliefs can be equated, in effect, to direct savings. What results is that both taxpayers and non-taxpayers may feel that the Budget does not have much for them.
Madam, I believe we have the makings of a social investment state, something which we will develop in our own unique way. And, by this, I mean that public expenditure is used to provide stabilisation and social insurance against risks which are external. Public investments, specifically social spending, is used to sustain the physical, human and social capital necessary for growth. Public expenditure should not be seen solely as an expense but an integral part of the productive economy.
What is unique about what I see as our social investment state is that, unlike the Nordic models, high public expenditure is not accompanied by high taxes – well, not yet at least. But it is a question that will have to be dealt with head on sooner than later. As the needs grow, new sources of income will have to be found.
Our Budgets make the effort to balance or even have a budgetary surplus seem almost effortless. Will this lull us into a false sense of security that money is easily available and that the suite of grants, benefits, hand-outs and tax reliefs for individuals and businesses are part of the budgetary routine, if not ritual? While this Government is not known for its \"generous\" Budgets, the larger
Page: 85
social spending each year is bound to make those who value fiscal prudence worry.
I think the larger concern is whether we are on the slippery slope to fiscal irresponsibility and, with that, the eroding of a steadfast work ethic, as well as personal and collective responsibility.
At another level, it probably reflects that thin line between a popular and populist Budget. While it is absolutely crucial to reduce class divides, this Budget's greater social spending is welcomed although we can try to make it more targeted. I hope that we will not set ourselves up for a class war where the policy and societal reflex are about the haves vs the have-nots.
Although I see the sharp accent on social spending as being indicative of playing catch-up to make up for past under-investments in the social sector, especially in healthcare, could the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister provide the assurance that thriftiness, responsibility and prudence remain hallmarks of public spending?
There is much to commend in the Budget Statement. My remarks have only addressed some of them but it is important that we continue to review the fundamental principles in our fiscal policy. The Budget is not just a fiscal instrument policy. It is very much an economic, political and social instrument as well. It provides that opportunity to define and reaffirm the society that we aspire to be. Hence, it is important that we get it as right as we can. I believe that so long as we focus on doing right, even if the policies and measures may be unpopular, we will continue to thrive and grow.
Madam, on that note, I reiterate my support for the principles and plans as outlined in the Budget Statement.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget has placed much emphasis on recognising and honouring the sacrifice and the many contributions of the 450,000 seniors who have, in their own little ways, contributed to the building of a young nation.
Like many in this House, I would like to register my appreciation and gratitude for the tenacity and gumption of these seniors, many of whom I have the opportunity and privilege to serve in my own ward – Kaki Bukit. They
Page: 86
deserve to be treated with utmost respect and any government of the day should facilitate and foster an environment where they can live with dignity and ease during their golden years.
Singapore became a sovereign nation a decade before I was born and during the years between 1965 and 1973, Singapore enjoyed a splendid record of growth and, in 1974, real growth was at 6.8%. By the time Singapore turned 10 in August 1975, the economy was expected to record a small growth of no more than 2%, a sharp decline from the previous decade. However, Singaporeans from all walks of life came together and Singapore pulled through another year of growth of about 4.1% in real terms in a year of worldwide economic recession.
This could not have been possible without the tenacity and gumption of our seniors. It was them who laid the foundations for a prosperous and safe Singapore that I would come to grow up in and serve as a Member of this House.
Many of the stories of these 450,000 seniors who will benefit directly from the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) are not known to younger Singaporeans like me. Their names are not found in the textbooks in our schools and their humble achievements are usually not on the list of priorities of our curators in museums throughout Singapore. Yet, my generation and the subsequent generations of Singaporeans after me are indebted to our seniors and their sense of public spiritedness.
I read about the Singapore Memory Project as a whole-of-nation movement and I hope that the memories of our Pioneer Generation in the form of text, audio, photos and/ or videos can be deposited or incorporated into this meaningful project. The moments of their experiences, recollections and memories are especially precious and I hope that more tangible and organisational steps can be taken to preserve and record their memories. This is not only meaningful to the seniors but it would also leave a lasting and precious legacy for our young.
The history of the common man in Singapore would be further enriched for the betterment of this nation. At the same time, it would also provide us with more resources to explore a more multi-dimensional historiographical understanding of our nation.
Madam, it is certainly the responsibility and obligation of any government of the day to take good care of the well-being of its citizens, young and old alike.
Page: 87
I am of the view that the PGP is a long overdue recognition of Singapore's pioneers and measures like the ones announced in this year's Budget should continually be tailored and reviewed in the midst of rapid changes in the environment around us.
The cost of healthcare is an ever increasing worry for all Singaporeans and this is especially so for our seniors. The PGP focuses solely on meeting the rising healthcare expenses of our seniors and, while this is a positive step forward, the cost of healthcare should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of the wider issue of an ever increasing cost of living problem where, unfortunately, many Singaporeans, in particular, our seniors, are unable to cope and they are subsequently left behind in our nation's development.
Seen in this light, a nuanced view of the PGP as one of the many means to tackle a larger problem should be adopted. It is one thing to celebrate and honour the achievements of our seniors; it is another thing altogether to romanticise the benefits of the PGP, and any Government should, in fact, recognise that it is merely fulfilling a core function of its duties to the very people who had elected them in the first place.
With the above in mind, I would like to put forth the following points for consideration as complementary means to assist our seniors in alleviating their daily financial burden.
The Government should consider extending the Taxi Subsidy Scheme that is currently in place for disabled Singaporeans to our Pioneer Generation. Through my work on the ground in Kaki Bukit and my constant interactions with elderly Singaporeans, the cost of travel to and from medical institutions to address their ailments certainly constitutes a big worry to them. Simply put, many of our seniors are unable to afford the transportation costs involved in travelling for their medical appointments. As a result, it has come to my attention that many seniors had to forgo or delay their medical care due to their inability to afford their travel expenses. While public transportation remains an option for many Singaporeans, it must be noted that our seniors may be left without a choice due to the frail condition of their ageing bodies. Travel costs should and must be the least of their worries, and I am of the view that the Government can do more in this aspect and seriously consider extending the Taxi Subsidy Scheme to the Pioneer Generation, in particular, those seniors who are currently covered by MediFund.
Page: 88
Many of our Pioneer Generation live on a tight monthly budget. More often than not, they have just enough monies for the month. Many in this House would know that many of our seniors get by every month on their meagre income, children's contributions, minimal savings, monthly CPF payouts or welfare financial assistance. Thus, we must be continually mindful that they are especially price-sensitive to any small increase in the cost of living, in particular, their food and grocery expenses. A dollar increase in their monthly food and grocery expenses hits them more adversely than it does any Member in this House.
Many have exercised prudence in their purchase of groceries but still they are unable to cope with the inflationary price pressures. Thus, I would like to recommend that the Government initiate a scheme to encourage supermarket chains or neighbourhood merchant associations to offer regular discounts to elderly patrons on certain days of the week. My understanding is that, at present, NTUC FairPrice supermarket chains have the practice of offering a 2% discount to elderly patrons every Tuesday. I think this can be emulated and expanded to include more retailers, especially the ones frequented by needy and elderly Singaporeans.
Madam, I support the move by the Government to extend Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) to kindergartens run by MOE and approved anchor operators. More students and their families would benefit from this extension. However, I am of the view that more can still be done. I would like to highlight that the extension of KiFAS should also benefit kindergartens run by Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) and religion-based entities. I understand that some of these non-profit operators face many financial issues, some of which stem from the non-payment of fees by needy families. Out of goodwill, these organisations would then absorb these fees, with the consequent effect of facing even further pressures on their financial capacity to do more for the community.
I would like to put on record my admiration for the compassion and dedication of many of these organisations and their staff in their continual efforts to ensure that the young in our society continue to receive the basic education they need to progress in life. The heavy financial pressures faced by non-profit operators should not be shouldered by them alone. These organisations have contributed incredibly in many ways to the development of our society and the promotion of social mobility. Hence, they should not be further burdened.
Page: 89
As such, I would like to reiterate the call that I made through my Budget Speech in 2013 for the Government to expand KiFAS to all families in accordance with their economic needs instead of their choice of the kindergarten. Probably, the Minister can explain to this House the thinking behind the administering of KiFAS and what are the considerations preventing the extension of KiFAS to other kindergartens outside the existing framework.
Madam, as a whole, I am heartened to read about the measures in the PGP and I see that as a long overdue recognition by the Government of the invaluable contributions and selfless dedication of our seniors towards the cause of this nation. Moving forward, the PGP should be reviewed on a regular basis, so that the measures remain relevant with the changing times. I am also hopeful that the Government would consider the proposals I have put forth above. Madam, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I share the joy and the sense of relief being felt by the Pioneer Generation with the introduction of the Pioneer Generation Package. I support the move to reduce the burden of healthcare costs that the Pioneer Generation is experiencing. However, I feel that the measures taken by the Government in this year's Budget, to acknowledge the Pioneer Generation, should have been done much earlier. Madam, it is the responsibility and duty of any Government to take care of the well-being and welfare of the people from all walks of life, whether they are youths or senior citizens.
The ever-increasing healthcare costs are among several causes of concern among Singaporeans, especially the senior citizens. The Pioneer Generation Package is focused solely on helping with the healthcare expenditure of senior citizens aged 65 years and above. Although it is a positive step forward, healthcare costs should not be taken separately. It is only a portion of or one of the costs of living in Singapore that have been increasing and are burdening the needy, especially among the senior citizens.
I would like to make two suggestions so that the burden of the Pioneer Generation can be further reduced. First, I would like to request that the Government extend the Taxi Subsidy Scheme provided to the disabled, to senior citizens, especially those receiving assistance from the MediFund Scheme.
Second, the Government can start a scheme to encourage supermarkets and neighbourhood business associations to provide discounts to senior
Page: 90
citizens on certain days of the week. I understand that Fairprice gives a 2% discount to senior citizen customers every Tuesday. I think that this kind of efforts can be extended to other supermarkets and retailers especially those that are frequented by our senior citizens.
Madam, during the 2013 Budget debates, I requested for KiFAS or the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme to be extended to all kindergarten students from needy families and not only limited to students from PCF kindergartens. In this year's Budget, KiFAS was extended only to kindergartens administered by MOE and Anchor Operators. Once again, I would like to ask the Government to extend the KiFAS scheme to kindergarten students who are attending kindergarten centres run by welfare and religious organisations.
Finally, I hope that the measures that were announced during this year's Budget will continue to be reviewed and updated so that the assistance being offered will move with the times, and correspond with the prevailing situation and cost of living. Madam, the Workers' Party supports the 2014 Budget.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2014. Please allow me to begin in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I could sense that the Malay/Muslim community was very touched when the Prime Minister paid tribute to the Malays from the Pioneer Generation who chose to remain in Singapore, after the separation with Malaysia. Their choice to do so made a big difference in our nation-building efforts.
This was important, especially since Malays in Singapore eventually made significant achievements and are able to stand as equals with the other communities. The Pioneer Generation of Malays should also become our role models, demonstrating the way for us to move forward as Singaporeans, with a commitment to meritocracy.
The Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) is well-received by the Malay/Muslim community all around. The Government's acknowledgement is in line with the spirit and ways of the Malay community, which are to always respect and appreciate the elderly. The PGP also takes care of the welfare and health of senior citizens, in the spirit of gotong-royong.
Page: 91
In fact, it is fitting that this package focuses on healthcare, since health issues are a major concern to the Malay/Muslim community. It more or less reduces the burden on children who are taking care of their elderly parents, especially in terms of healthcare costs, and, in the long term, it would be good if the message that we wish to send out would also include raising awareness on disease prevention, practising a healthy lifestyle and planning for healthcare needs.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, the highlight of this year's Budget is arguably the PGP. It is, undoubtedly, a generous package and I am heartened to see that many seniors I speak to are happy to be recognised. This is especially since, in this case, qualifying for the package was not by means testing as it is in recognition of our Pioneer Generation's achievements. Many of my residents I have spoken to are happy with the PGP. Many have already subscribed to CHAS and I am heartened that many will continue to benefit from the Package.
In this sense, this Budget gives recognition to our Pioneer Generation so that they do not feel left out of our modern economy, which they had helped build over the years. Through this move, the Government also sends a clear message – that no one gets left behind, especially the seniors who have brought us to where we are today.
The Package will also help many residents. Many who are middle income dwellers in my constituency form the \"sandwiched class\"; and they have to care for their seniors, especially those who do not have to support their premiums or their future healthcare needs. This is a system that also encourages filial piety, which, I hope, translates to the values that we want to inculcate in our society across all ages, now and in the future.
Even though in past Budget speeches, there had been an emphasis that the Government was only focusing on leaving no one behind, the PGP is one budget item that makes me proud to be a Singaporean and a Member in this House.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to move on now to speak for the generations that will succeed the Pioneers. As I move around for house visits, a number of Singaporeans that I spoke to, in their late 40s or early 60s, often cite their concern that they do not feel secure where retirement is concerned. While the Government is trying to address their concerns in terms of healthcare affordability, many do not have the confidence that they can retire comfortably
Page: 92
with the same quality and standard of living they enjoy today.
Many have invested their CPF in property and can barely meet the Minimum Sum and save on their own accord. They look at the ever-increasing cost of living and inflation, and project the future costs in their minds against the savings that they can accumulate. This is where many become uncertain about their future here.
But do not get me wrong. Many Singaporeans are grateful for the work that the Government is doing in terms of healthcare subsidies and keeping MediShield premiums affordable. However, they also have friends and family around them with chronic and serious ailments where out-of-pocket expenses and indirect costs are still required for medication and treatments which have increased over time, and so they fear for their own fate.
I acknowledge that there is a danger of the Government requiring larger budgets or increased taxes if more expenses need to be covered. But as we deal with healthcare affordability and CPF savings adequacy in old age, these are often seen as safety nets. We also need to look from the lens of citizens. In addition to these instruments, can one still maintain a comfortable standard of living without being priced out in Singapore?
I also believe it is important that our heartlands, where most Singaporeans and seniors live, must continue to remain affordable and vibrant. Many residents I speak to are concerned that city prices are creeping into our heartlands, with the many malls, food courts and supermarkets replacing our familiar wet markets, mom-and-pop shops and small-time service providers. Today's rentals in the heartlands have also ensured that whatever traditional businesses that remain, end up with almost similar prices to what you can find in the malls and food courts in the city.
Commercialising many of our heartland centres has caused a lot of many traditional businesses being squeezed out. Today, we continue to inherit modern businesses and swanky malls that provide higher order goods. These are typically more expensive and you find carbon copies of shops from the same franchises from heartland to heartland.
So, I hope to see HDB and NEA playing a more active role to provide a greater balance of affordable rental spaces in our HDB estates. Create more opportunities for traditional businesses – whether it is your friendly neighbourhood barber, the hardware shop, the shoe repair, the locksmith, the
Page: 93
plumbers or the tailors in the neighbourhood. They do not just play a part in providing low-cost services, but they also enable the ordinary citizens, including seniors, to participate in the localised heartland economy as business owners or a consumer seeking low costs of living, insulated from city prices.
Our quality of life must prevail even in retirement. I feel concerned when I meet middle-aged citizens, especially those who are doing well today with decent jobs, saying they would like to migrate when they retire so that they can retire comfortably. It is sad when they do not see a place for themselves in this land that they have toiled with blood, sweat and tears over the years.
As I prepared this speech, Singapore was named the most expensive city to live in among 133 cities in 2014. This was a report that was released this morning by the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU). We are now more expensive than Tokyo, Zurich, Paris and Sydney. Apart from car and utility prices, we are now also the most expensive place in the world to buy clothes. So, I urge the Government to look seriously and urgently into our cost of living concerns now and for the long term. For as long as our high costs of living are concerned, it will be near impossible to allay our citizens' fears that we can retire comfortably and with a reasonable quality of life. I truly understand why many feel this way.
Madam, I support Member Inderjit Singh's call earlier for a committee to review our cost competitiveness. Although he meant it for businesses, I say to extend this to the consumers as well to review our cost of living concerns.
Madam, the Government's measures to bridge the income divide have shown some progress – the Gini coefficient fell from 0.478 in 2012 to 0.470 in 2013 and this has shown some reduction in income disparity. Given the Government's commitment to social mobility in a number of our Budget items – education, healthcare costs, job opportunities – I am happy to see visible outcomes of policies that have the PAP Government's mark stamped all over it, reflecting the party's own core values of building a \"fair and just\" society.
We have seen in Budget 2014 how the Government has been able to budget for various policies, including the Pioneer Generation Package, through our surpluses and reserves income. This is no easy feat, as many countries struggle with balancing their Budget. Today, you will also find many political parties trying to claim credit as well with regard to caring for our seniors. But, again, where does the surplus come from? Can you run the economy effectively and generate the surplus and the reserves to account for and support such a
Page: 94
measure?
As such, it is imperative for us to progress together as a nation and continue to redistribute our wealth equitably and level up society.
The open market that Singapore operates in is efficient economically and propagates meritocracy. However, our meritocratic environment also generates an outcome where the better-abled will succeed on the basis of merit and those who are more capable will likely earn more. Those who are not as able or who are less capable may not climb up the ladder at the same pace and are likely to earn less. So, this, generally, leads to widening inequality. Singapore, as a small country, in this open, global economy, has no choice but to operate within this regime.
Unfortunately, a free market, left on its own, may not lead to equitable incomes. Thus, this Government has an even stronger role to play to level up the society, given the larger system that Singapore needs to operate in.
This Budget has shown that despite globalisation and the impact of an open economy, the PAP Government can play a strong and impactful role in creating a fair and equitable society. And I hope, in time, Singapore will recognise how our policies today have helped our people for the long term.
In the long term, however, I foresee that there may be more pressure put on the Government to impose higher taxes on the higher income group or introduce wealth taxes, such as the Buffett tax rule in the US. For now, I think our Budget transfer policies have shown some success but, if the income divide widens further, the Government may need to look into increasing income taxes at the upper end or wealth taxes. However, this needs to be done in a way where such taxes are taken as socially-driven tax measures to help level up society. I agree with Member Alvin Yeo's comments that Singapore cannot go down the path of politics of envy, where people try to level down others who have made it.
Both market-led growth and equal opportunities are important. But we must also ensure that the sense of equity and social mobility has to be felt and visible to the people. Otherwise, we risk our people feeling that Singapore is only for the rich and successful and that their future lies elsewhere but Singapore.
Page: 95
Mdm Speaker, on the business front, it is quite clear that this is a Budget for the SMEs. The Government has made good strides to listen to the ground over the past years to better assist businesses through various business schemes, while at the same time retaining its focus towards greater productivity and innovation, and at the same time calibrating our reliance on foreign manpower.
The extension of the PIC and the introduction of the PIC+ will help even more SMEs, to give them more time and targeted help to pursue their productivity aims. These productivity-led measures will also help companies address existing cost challenges and business productivity.
I am heartened with the recent progress announced by SPRING Singapore. I am confident that these schemes will bring about stronger productivity improvements among the medium and large-sized SMEs. But there are also concerns whether the PIC and PIC+ can assume a one-size-fits-all strategy and whether the Government needs a different approach for the small-sized SMEs, especially those with 10 or less employees.
For the small-sized SMEs, the reason why I bring them up is they could end up being a very insulated group. And this will span about one-third of SMEs in Singapore. The PIC and PIC+ generally promote productivity improvements within the company. For the small-sized SMEs, we may need a cross-industry or cross-sector-driven productivity drive. And in this regard, the Government may have to roll up its sleeves further to drive transformations across a cluster of small companies at a time within a business grouping or within a supply chain. For companies of this size, the Government may also need to drive more R&D efforts as they have no capability or resources to embark on R&D. In fact, R&D at an industry or supply chain level for a cluster of small companies may make more sense.
So, it will be interesting to see if agencies could help connect retail shops or food centres in the heartlands with shared services, e-payments or other innovative service providers. One retail shop, on its own, may not find automation useful without scale. But a business community, put together, may find automation or shared services useful in lowering their business costs and enhancing customer experience. Thus, there may be a need to employ a different strategy for productivity transformation as we get to the harder-to-reach, small-sized SMEs.
Page: 96
The other issue on R&D is the alignment of the R&D centres that are available today. Most R&D centres here, such as A*STAR, are Government-related. I would like to enquire whether these Government agencies have sufficient capacity and the right KPIs aligned to entrepreneurship and SME engagement. Are the KPIs focused more on product research or innovation that can be commercialised? Thus, the alignment has to be a lot clearer for these agencies for R&D and intellectual property to be useful within the PIC framework. We need to look deeper into how our SMEs can capitalise beyond the automation and training aspects of the PIC and move instead into innovation. This is crucial, especially with how we need to differentiate our economy and local companies from our regional competition.
Madam, I believe this Budget has shown that we are able to generate a good mix of social and economic policies for our citizens. However, of late, the Government has also taken a credibility hit in our execution and administration.
While we look at Government spending in all areas, we should also look into the amount of resources the Government has allocated to enhance our governance. The Government also needs to review its own efforts to address the effectiveness of its administration and delivery of key services.
Recent procurement lapses, for instance, those identified in the AGO reports and high-profile corruption cases, have raised questions on the Government's credibility. While the Government was able to address these lapses – of course, there may be some questions remaining as to why they were not identified earlier and whether procurement can be better performed by specialists and divisions that are independent of the users.
In addition, it is important that we strengthen our regulators and agencies, given some of the other publicised lapses in public services. These range from the frequent public transport disruptions to immigration trespasses and communication disruptions in our mobile networks.
Understandably, the business of Government today is more complex and certainly of a larger magnitude, compared to past decades.
While capacity and expertise are key areas that need to be addressed, the Government Budget should also address the talent, capacity, systems and processes in place to make the Government more effective, productive and innovative to improve governance.
Page: 97
Ultimately, operational failures on the ground have had an impact on the Government's credibility. But this is about governance. I would like to also hear how the Budget will address this concern.
I hope that the Minister for Finance can assure the public that while we prepare for policies for the long term for the people, we also are able to set our basic public services right, retain our reputation for efficiency and be effective with our policies. This Budget also needs to put a strong focus on getting our execution right, and build a Government service that is more connected to the ground.
Madam, in conclusion, Budget 2014 has thus shown that this Government can effectively balance economic growth and our social objectives. We should continue on this path. Most Singaporeans buy into our productivity narrative and the need to compete in this globalised economy. But over time, this Government needs to show that with increasing productivity, our quality of life will continue to prevail and living in Singapore continues to be affordable.
People must feel that these changes are taking effect. And the effects must be visible so that our people continue to buy-in into the long-term strategic plans for Singapore. Even in today's globalised world where a competitive business environment forces us to work on global terms – our Budget retains a strong social focus and a strong commitment to the people.
These are the strengths of the PAP Government. Singaporeans, having voted us as the ruling Government, deserve the benefit of a fair, effective and connected Government. So, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for a Budget 2014 that delivered on this promise. Madam, I support the Budget.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.56 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
Page: 98
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Madam, I rise in support of Budget 2014. The annual national Budget is not a goodie-bag exercise where everyone gets a special bonus each year. Neither is it a lucky draw, where only the lucky ones return home with a prize.
The national budgeting exercise is a strategic allocation of our precious resources to meet our short- and long-term priorities. It is a tool by which the elected government carries out its duty of ensuring the sustainability, availability and affordability of essential basic services for all its people. These essential basic services are public housing, public transport, public healthcare, public education, public order and security, and sufficient economic opportunities to ensure jobs for our people.
As the demands of Singaporeans rise, it is very important to constantly go back to this core duty of government and ensure that these basic priorities are met.
It is also important for the Government and people to be clear about what the \"must-provide\" items are and what the \"nice-to-have\" items are.
A case in point is the recent review of MediShield Life. Madam, to me, this is a \"must-provide\" item. I applaud the review committee's strong proposal that all Singaporeans, including those currently uninsured, are covered for their healthcare and, especially, for their bigger hospitalisation expenses.
Healthcare is a basic essential service that must not be denied to any of our people, whatever health condition they are born with or acquired during their lifetime. It will not be right for a person, for example, born with Down's Syndrome or a person who acquired a heart condition or diabetes to be denied healthcare insurance or other medical benefits that other citizens have access to.
I, therefore, look forward to the Government's active leadership to ensure that every Singaporean has access to affordable and available public healthcare;
Page: 99
and, at least, at the same coverage level as every other member of the Singapore family. We have done so with the very commendable Pioneer Generation Package, ensuring that those who are disabled and elderly are included. But the younger ones with pre-existing conditions, whether born or acquired later in life, must be included. I urge the Government to ensure that sufficient resources are set aside each year to ensure that this basic healthcare for every Singaporean is provided.
Madam, I would like to next advocate for two other groups of Singaporeans: (a) the local small, medium enterprise (SME) operators; and (b) the elderly and the disabled.
On SMEs: Singapore SMEs form the backbone of our economy. They employ seven out of every 10 workers and contribute nearly half of national GDP. Without them, not only our economy and jobs are put at risk, the energy and spirit of entrepreneurship are also at risk of being extinguished. The voices of the smaller local enterprises regarding their challenges must be heard before they snowball further.
Cost: there is the challenge of cost faced by these SMEs which is often not supported by rising consumer demands for things cheaper, better and faster. Many of the recent calls for hikes have strong rationale and should be supported. These include:
(a) Restoration of CPF contributions for the older workers;
(b) Higher progressive wages for the lower-income groups;
(c) Higher vehicle and ERP charges to manage car population and avoid congestions seen in other Asian cities; and
(d) Tightening of low-skilled foreign manpower to make way for locals and, hopefully, higher productivity and value-add.
To me, Madam, one specific cost item that needs the touch of the state is clearly business rental. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) launched by institutional landlords and their need to meet the expectations of financial analysts had been adding to the mounting cost pressures of SMEs. Many of these landlords, in addition to charging a base rental, have been collecting a percentage of the sales turnover of their tenants without any ceiling whatsoever. There is also little restraint on the new rentals that are imposed upon these
Page: 100
small business operators upon expiry of their rental leases. This is something that needs to be taken care of.
Sad will be the day when the only tenants that can afford retail space are luxury brands and those that can afford good office space who are mostly non-SME tenants.
Scale: there is also the challenge of scaling and expansion by local SMEs. Many local entrepreneurs with the product know-how do not have the mindset and the process expertise to scale and expand their business to reap economies of scale for long-term survival.
I recently came across a neighbourhood sign-maker, Mr Yeo, who is Chinese-speaking and a small enterprise operator. Mr Yeo owns a flatted factory making and delivering signboards of all sorts – road signs, building signs, paper-signs, stainless-steel signs, complete with lights, no lights, LED lightings and lights of all types.
Mr Yeo has the spirit and the drive of an entrepreneur but he runs the risk soon of a declining business due not only to mounting costs but also the lack of ability to scale and grow his business.
To assist Mr Yeo, I showed him the business model of Signarama. US-based Signarama holds the world's largest sign franchise and provides a full range of signs and graphic services to clients of all industries. Signarama earned the coveted No 1 spot in Entrepreneur Magazine in 2014.
I asked Mr Yeo, \"What is stopping you from becoming the next Signarama?\" He replied in Chinese, \"不是每一个人都能拿笔的\", that is, \"Not all of us can hold the pen\". And he needed help to scale his business while he focuses on what he does best – production and delivery.
The same can be said of many businesses which do not seem able to scale for long-term survival. These include those in F&B, cleaning services, hotels and including even Singapore's highly admired education system of which SGMaths is now becoming a coveted offering internationally. Online, also brick-and-mortar. Helping businesses to scale to reap economics of scale in cost and multiplying their income streams is an expertise that needs to be nurtured, something that the SMEs need very badly.
Page: 101
I was totally impressed by an online retail group which call themselves \"Love Bonito\" – Singapore's leading online fashion retailer with 65,000 Facebook likes, many of whom are very enthusiastic customers. Word has it that there are instances when new designs, fashion designs or promotions are announced online, and there will be a group of customers, sometimes boyfriends of their customers, hawking at the keyboard to buy, to devour the new promotion items.
Alas, there are not many businesses which can scale this way. Even for Love Bonito, taking the business global will require further expertise than what the local SME Centres and the public servants can provide.
Madam, the mystery of why many of Singapore's SMEs have not crossed the chasm to the land of milk and honey is yet to be unlocked.
I was given a brochure by a friend, printed by SPRING Singapore entitled \"Quality Growth Programme for Businesses\". Within it are simple English descriptions of the:
(a) Wage Credit Scheme;
(b) Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Bonus;
(c) Corporate Income Tax Rebate;
(d) Innovation and Capability Voucher;
(e) iSprint on using packaged or customised IT solutions to improve or innovate business operations; and
(f) Contact details of five SME Centres.
I believe Singapore has one of the most active governments in the world to assist its local enterprises in transforming themselves for survival in the 21st century and beyond. But the outcomes have been less than encouraging, not for lack of trying, as evidenced by the many Government assist schemes.
Beyond the current good work, I urge the Government to seriously investigate the root causes of some of these challenges that are mentioned many times on many platforms by the SMEs. I suggest a few actions for
Page: 102
consideration.
One, analyse the root causes of the key pains of cost hikes, especially in business rental and the replacement of transport for business purposes. Consider cooling measures, especially for business rental, and provide alternatives to encourage promising budding SMEs.
Two, go deeper and help differently for different segments of the SME sector in order to help them scale for long-term survival. SMEs with good core product or service offerings but who are less than tech-savvy need skills and expertise that complement them. We need to find the right kind of experts to walk the journey with them – leveraging on these SMEs' core product knowledge and innovative spirit, help create needed blended physical-online business presence and, where appropriate, help them to widen their distribution channels.
SMEs led by younger and possibly more digital-savvy entrepreneurs should move beyond the popular and over-populated F&B space or cupcake-type of businesses. They can do with additional and different help. Beyond the cheques, make available easy access to expertise and counsel for them to create the 21st century's sustainable blended physical-online or purely online business models.
As in the people sector that I serve in, transforming organisations require more than the writing of cheques. We need to move to the next level of facilitation for both business and even for the not-for-profit organisation transformations.
Next, on the elderly and those with special needs. Madam, I would like to propose help to develop income streams for the vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with special needs.
Many of these vulnerable individuals may not be able to hop on the productivity wage ladder but, nonetheless, can be engaged more meaningfully through some form of work. They are capable to work, perhaps not full-time, sometimes part-time, but there is, currently, insufficient coordinated support for them. Some of them spend most of their time indulging in social activities in senior activity centres, day activity centres or at home.
In view of the tightening labour market, I propose that the Government set up a team in each Government and Government-linked agency to: (a) identify
Page: 103
and aggregate piecemeal or full jobs or contracts that are suitable for the elderly and those with special needs. Take the extra mile, provided the quality standards of work can be met, allot extra points to ensure that work of this nature, contract of this nature go to the more vulnerable; (b) develop incentive and recognition schemes to encourage these Ministries and Government-linked agencies to purposefully work with the people-sector players for longer-term work arrangements.
Take, for instance, the annual packing of thousands of National Day Parade bags by our National Servicemen. There is no reason why this work cannot be outsourced to the disability and elderly platform and have these able-bodied, young, likely more educated men to be redeployed to other areas of Total Defence.
Take, for instance, the need to archive the numerous records in our different Ministries and agencies. There is no reason why work like this cannot be specially given to folks with special needs who can be properly trained and supported. I look forward to the Government's support specifically in this area.
In short, what I am proposing are: (a) MediShield Life guarantee for the younger disabled; (b) expertise to help the SMEs scale up and survive and expand; and (c) jobs and contracts for the elderly and the special needs folks in our country.
Finally, I would like to say something about our Pioneer Generation Package, this special feature of Budget 2014.
A wise man once said, \"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also\".
Budget 2014 clearly reflects where our hearts and treasures are – the pioneers who helped us build this nation.
Many in the House have shared about their support, especially for the Pioneer Generation Package. They shared their personal stories of how their parents, their grandparents, their great grandparents have contributed to our land.
My parents did not have the standing of political luminaries like our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew; neither were my parents leaders in the Army or Police; nor professionals like Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong's parents.
Page: 104
But like many other ordinary Singaporeans of the time, they immigrated to Singapore in search of a better life. When this dream seemed threatened in the post-1965 independent Singapore, these pioneers stood by the country, they did not flee and return to their homeland; and they raised my generation and beyond.
I, therefore, thank the Government and especially Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Senior Minister of State and the team who, beyond words and rhetoric, did the hard work of listening to the feedback from the ground. Thank you for working out the features and thank you for working out the sums to make this package a reality. Madam, I strongly support this Budget.
Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the 2014 Budget. It is a Budget that is visionary, compassionate and steadfast.
Visionary because it focuses on long-term problems that Singapore faces, like ageing and higher healthcare costs. In this aspect, the $8 billion Pioneer Package helps solve some of these problems. By subsidising healthcare costs, the Government has made older Singaporeans better able to cope with rising medical costs. It also makes ageing a more manageable trend for Singapore as, with healthcare costs subsidised, the economic and social costs of ageing on the younger generation are reduced.
Moreover, it is also a visionary Budget in the way in which it is aimed to create a fair and equal society. In many countries, like in the US, calls have been made to reduce inequality in the society by taxing the rich and bringing down the ceiling, instead of raising the floor. I am glad that the Government has taken a more enlightened approach in this regard and instead of penalising the rich it has chosen to uplift the lower income. Through targeted subsidies in housing, healthcare and education, the Government has given them a leg up. I applaud the Government and the Finance Minister for this visionary approach.
The Budget is compassionate as it is aimed at improving the lives of Singaporeans. A considerable amount of this Budget has been allocated to help lower income Singaporeans to cope with rising costs of healthcare.
At the same time, there were also subsidies for education at pre-school and tertiary levels that created a level playing ground for children from the lower
Page: 105
income segments and that will see them through higher education. Education is a primary way to bring people up the social ladder as a means of mobility and I am glad that the Government is using this approach. The Government has also not forgotten the disabled group as well as it has allocated a significant sum in this Budget to improve their lives and make it that much more comfortable.
Even in the Pioneer Generation Package, the Government, which normally uses criteria, such as type of housing or household income, has taken a more liberal and comprehensive approach by including everyone from 65 years old and above. This is a good thing as the Government ensured that everyone who contributed to Singapore's early development, rich or otherwise, get recognised and honoured for their contributions.
The Budget is also steadfast as it stands its ground on long-term economic restructuring plans. It sets out to continue with what it started two years ago – to restructure the economy to be more productive and innovative and to move it up the value-chain of activities. So, measures like extending the PIC, for example, and even the PIC+ is very good in this regard as it helps give the productivity push a longer and broader runway.
But here is where, as an SME-leader, I have a few points to make. We can all acknowledge that this Budget was more social than economic and, in fact, there was not much in it for businesses to cheer about. Whereas the Budget targeted to solve social issues, there were also business issues that it should have targeted to solve.
Our SMEs have played a crucial part in the shaping of the economy over the decades. They have been a big source of employment for Singaporeans. The SMEs have been at cross roads for some years now. The uncertain economic conditions globally and the unbearable costs of doing business, combined with severe shortage of labour, have forced many SMEs to wind down in Singapore.
Madam, I would have liked to see more focus and attention to help the plight of the SMEs which are absent in the Budget. Among the chief costs of doing business for SMEs is the rental cost. It is shocking to hear rental costs being increased by as much as threefold for renewals, as mentioned during The Business Time's Budget Roundtable discussions by ASME President Mr Kurt Wee. In this economic climate where existence is a struggle for SMEs, rental
Page: 106
increase of this magnitude will be fatal for a large number of SMEs.
With REITs taking over most industrial/commercial premises, the cushioning effort provided by JTC in the past is totally vanished. While REITs may offer financial returns which are attractive, an asset value being pushed higher by several times makes little sense with no significant underlying change to the value offered to tenant. For instance, if it is a retail space, the tenant is interested in seeing its value only by the amount of traffic it can bring year-on-year and offer rents. If the asset value is fuelled high by trading on a speculative basis without any underlying benefit changing traffic, it is bound to disrupt economics for the operating businesses.
Labour shortage is another area where SMEs are struggling over the recent years. Our economy has changed significantly over the past decade or two. So have our population skillsets and expectations, especially within the new generation. While we are all conscious of moving up the value chain, not all SMEs operate in high-tech and new-age businesses where value-add is significantly higher.
We still need several simple businesses to be existent to cater to our basic necessities, such as provisions, F&B and other personal services, such as hair-cutting, laundry and shoe smiths, for instance. There are barely enough choices for labour within the local pool for businesses, such as F&B and retail. The curtailing of foreign worker quotas and increase in levy over the recent years has choked all labour and service-intensive businesses like retail and F&B.
With more educated youths having expectations and interests to work in more office-related jobs and in big-name MNCs, SMEs are really left out in the cold. Their ability to do better for their employees and, thus, attract talent, is restricted by the high business costs like rents and so on.
Labour costs are not only rising because of the shortage of local talent but also contributing to it. This is because, with rising cost of living in Singapore, retaining labour is harder as incremental increases in salary make a lot of difference in the labour market. However, SMEs, already pushed to the corner with rising business costs, cannot afford to push the wages higher. They have nowhere else to look to except the Government and the Budget for some relief.
On the subject of increased business costs for SMEs, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the findings of an MTI study, which states that labour, rental and utility costs alone account for 78% of business costs for
Page: 107
manufacturing SMEs. The case is no better in other sectors, including retail.
While labour tightening efforts may have reduced the foreign population, besides the severe effect on SMEs, it has inflicted damages on the service quality levels in many service businesses as well.
Singapore has always prided itself in offering excellent service quality levels in service sectors like retail and F&B over the decades. Our wave of efforts in the 1990s and early 2000s to improve productivity and service levels with schemes like \"Go the extra mile\" had helped the local firms a lot. Today, with severe labour shortage and cost concerns adding to it, we have fewer staff servicing customers and more lost opportunities in business.
In pursuit of the national objective, I can speak from my own organisation's viewpoint, which is likely to be echoed by others, that we have hired lots of Singaporeans at work from the mature age group as well. This programme, called the \"Golden Girls\", was tailored to suit the abilities of older Singaporean employees. Working just five hours a day and ensuring a minimum salary of $1,000 a month we thought would bring back people to work and address the labour shortage.
However, we find that even this short five-hour work schedule is unbearable for many and they leave the job abruptly. Such is the challenge today in the labour market, especially in service sectors like retail. With such sudden drop-outs, our situation comes back to the same place where we began several months ago – with efforts, time and money invested in training gone to waste.
The Budget, with a clear thought on helping Singaporeans with the increased costs of healthcare and so on, has recommended an increase of employer's contribution to CPF of between 1% and 2% for various age groups. Since the usage is likely to be intended to improve the social standards and defray essential medical expenses, it would have been better if these were offset by budgetary grants to the companies.
As younger Singaporeans shun SMEs for MNCs or to be entrepreneurs, SMEs are today left employing the bulk of the older workers. With these increased CPF costs, it is again the SMEs who are silently bearing the brunt of all cost increases with little options. All these additional costs hurt the businesses further at a time when companies are already struggling.
Page: 108
Today, under a tight labour market, we are having more people back into our Singapore workforce. With more people contributing to the growth of the nation, it is important that we do everything for the good health, which is a prerequisite for being economically productive. In Singapore, we have always cherished and prided ourselves on our spirit of tripartite cooperation at all times for growth and well-being. Historically, through the tripartite arrangement, employees (unions), employers and Government get together to join hands on matters of common interest. The MediSave account contribution is one such case where the contributions are made in the future interest of all three parties. I would like to suggest and propose that we should look at having equal contributions from all the three parties for the MediSave account. At this moment, all and every increase is being borne only by employee or employer and it will be good to have the Government join in as a concerned partner for the welfare of the people.
This generous and kind effort towards our Pioneer Generation will cost us $8 billion over the next 20-plus years. Out of $9 billion total projected expenses, a $8 billion fund has been created. The Budget conservatively has taken the entire burden in the current year. While it is a prudent effort, the amount is a very significant proportion of our revenues, almost 12%-13%.
It would have been nice even if a majority of the total outlay, say, 75% is provided in the current year while the rest over the immediate next few years. Even if only in the good years we have the ability to bear futuristic expenses, it could have been covered within five years.
Such an exercise may have allowed more leeway for the Government to propose and direct initiatives to help SMEs and businesses, particularly mitigating their concerns of rising business costs and labour shortage.
I hope the Government will seriously consider my suggestions for these areas as we aim to make the lives of Singaporeans better, and help build a strong Singapore Core.
Most importantly was the survival of businesses. Many SMEs I know are facing problems with cost and even cash flow and the Budget really should have addressed these. We need to save our businesses and help them cope with these pressures. The business environment is already tight and the outlook is also uncertain. In this aspect, businesses need a lot of help from the Government. If we do not give them some hope for survival, they will not even
Page: 109
look at making productivity improvements for the long run.
We should also take this opportunity to help grow our local brands. I like that the Government allocated funds for internationalisation and to help the start-up community. These are very useful in building Singapore brands and taking them globally as well as improving Singapore's visibility on the entrepreneurship and business map globally. In this regard, we should incentivise companies to build their own brands. At present, we provide grants for them to acquire brands. But with enough R&D and guidance, SMEs here can and should develop their own brands. The Government should help them in this regard to give them grants and the expertise from our Government agencies on developing R&D, commercialising it and also to develop and market their own brands on the global market. This will also help SMEs build their revenue streams so that they can better cope with the costs. It will also deepen Singapore's position on the global corporate landscape as it helps build Singapore brands and globally competitive companies. On the whole, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Minister for Finance announced that the Government will inject $8 billion to set up a Pioneer Generation Fund which will provide lifetime healthcare subsidies for 450,000 pioneers. This is, indeed, a heartening and much welcomed move.
All men will go through the four stages of life: birth, growing old, falling sick and dying. Everyone will fall sick and need medical treatment. Even Emperor Qin Shi Huang who, more than 2,000 years ago, united China and ruled his empire was afraid of death. He sent Xu Fu to look for the Elixir of Life, the magical drug which will give him eternal life. As we can see, mankind has been troubled over medical issues throughout the ages.
In Japan, people pray for a \"good death\". In Singapore, people not only look at quantity but also quality of healthcare. They hope that Singapore can provide first-class medical services and can cure diseases quickly.
What I find heartening is the fact that we had been very united since our nation-building years. We worked together to build a strong economic foundation where we do not need to add burden to our next generation. Our nation can fund this $8 billion package in this year's Budget and set up the
Page: 110
Pioneer Generation Fund where our elders can enjoy their golden years without any worry.
This is probably our elderly parents' cherished desire. They spent their lives working hard for the country, for their families, and for their children. They worked tirelessly so that their loved ones could have a better life. And in their old age, they would not want to be a burden for their children. We must remember their selfless nature. As their children, we can do something for them. We can let them enjoy their golden years. It is justified.
Even though we are able to resolve their worry this time, in the long run, a responsible Government will attempt to tackle the problem at its roots. It must start from the basics and make long-term plans which will once and for all resolve all our worries on healthcare. This is because Singaporeans understand that if we keep on providing subsidies, we will be adding onto the burden for the country and its taxpayers. Eventually, if the country gets into financial woes, its people will suffer.
What we should try to achieve is to be able to control medical costs, maintain a high standard of medical care and promote healthy living among Singaporeans.
As to how we can strike a balance between controlling costs and achieving a high standard of medical care, it is something the relevant Ministries should deliberate about. In this day and age, every country is cracking its brains to provide the best possible medical care without raising costs, to attract and retain the top talents and to purchase the latest equipment in a cost-effective way. All these are, indeed, arduous tasks.
So, I would like to urge Singaporeans to cultivate a healthy lifestyle. As the old saying goes – prevention is better than cure. If we pay attention to healthy living, exercise regularly, eat right and stay healthy, we will cut down on medical expenditure.
On the selfless sacrifice of our seniors, I hope this is a virtue that we can carry on for generations. I hope Singaporeans will go a step further. I hope more Singaporeans will say that they have contributed to the country and they have spared a thought for others. Let us not litter, let us give the seat to someone who needs it more and so on, so that Singapore will always be a warm and harmonious society.
Page: 111
We need to know that Singapore is a small island without any natural resources and we import everything. Even air is not free. We have to pay to control the quality of air, for example, to deal with the haze. We must remember to be prepared for the worst even in the best of times. We must continue to strengthen our defence, our Total Defence.
In the early days, some people said our founding Prime Minister was too strict and his dominance hampered our creativity. Then some people suggested that we must allow all Singaporeans to participate in policymaking because the Government does not know everything. But now, we hear others urging us to go back to the old ways. I believe we need some degree of moderation in whatever we do. The Government must continue to govern and to monitor and regulate our society. It needs to ensure that each generation of Singaporeans will enjoy peace and security. It must provide more quality jobs so that more Singaporeans can benefit from these jobs.
Yesterday, some Members of the House suggested that Government should provide free education while others reminded us that doing so will only increase our social cost. I personally believe that educational outlay is a long-term investment. Besides providing education subsidies, the Government and private organisations also provide bursaries and scholarships to those who need them. I suggest that the Government, together with the community, should consider making all scholarship holders \"pay back to society\" through doing social services. What is taken from the society should also be returned to and used in the society. As the Chinese saying goes, it takes 10 years for a tree to bear fruit but it takes 100 years to see education bear fruit. We need to carry on the spirit of grooming our young.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, I am concerned about those pioneer seniors below 80 years old who cannot even afford to pay for the differences in their MediShield premiums. Is the Government prepared to top up for them or incentivise VWOs or individuals who are prepared to support or help top up for them?
Currently, the load on Government hospitals, particularly the A&E department, is quite heavy and, hence, I would like to suggest that we expand the polyclinics' services to 24 hours seven days a week, and expand their facilities and services to alleviate the load on Government hospitals.
I must thank the Government for accepting my earlier suggestion and introduced CHAS to encourage private clinics to expand their role to help
Page: 112
support the needs of our ageing population as I believe it helps speedy recovery of patients who are more comfortable to be attended to by their family medical practitioners. Private clinics should be encouraged and equipped further to meet the medical needs of our ageing population to the extent that some procedures and treatment can even be carried out directly at the clinics for the convenience of our Singaporeans.
The other welcomed announcement is for older Singaporeans above 50 who are still working. The increase in their CPF contribution rates will certainly help to beef up their retirement funds. Singaporeans are living longer and their expectations about their standard of living during their retirement years are generally higher as well. In addition, older Singaporeans prefer to be self-sufficient and independent of their children's financial support. Hence, it is even more important that they save as much as they can while they are working.
While I full heartedly support the increase in CPF rates, I am also deeply concerned about the impact of the higher rates on the very same group of workers we are trying to help. I am worried that the additional employer contribution rates may be a disincentive to employers to retain the older workers. Most of our current compensation packages continue to be based on employee tenure and history. Even without taking higher CPF contributions into account, many employers are already finding younger workers more attractive as their overall remunerations are lower.
To ensure the employability of older Singaporean workers, including those above 40, they must be able to match the values generated by the younger workers. Their skill sets have to be updated consistently to stay relevant in today's rapidly developing market. Training and retraining are essential. Hence, I support the top-up to the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund by $500 million. The total fund size of $4.6 billion will put us in good stead to support our workers in upgrading their skills and learning new skillsets.
I also appreciate what the Government is doing to help employers cope with cost increases associated with the increase in CPF contribution rates. The enhanced Special Employment Credit (SEC) of up to 8.5% of the employee's monthly wages will assist with the transition.
The public sector ought to set a good example for the market through its own enlightened employment practices by retaining older workers. I would like to ask the Minister what is the percentage of older workers that are employed by SMEs compared to large corporations or MNCs. What can the Government
Page: 113
do to encourage and ensure that larger corporates do try to retain their older workers?
Nonetheless, we must also address the need to meet the requirements of businesses so that quality jobs with better income can continue to be generated for Singaporeans. Business cost must be closely managed to ensure that Singapore remains attractive and competitive for investors to do business here and create quality jobs for Singaporeans.
Back to the issue of CPF contribution rates – is raising the CPF the only and best way to help Singaporeans meet the expected rise in MediShield premiums? The biggest expenditure in most Singaporeans' lives is actually housing. Should the prices of public housing be further reviewed such that less than 30% of one's monthly income is spent on housing, leaving more income to be set aside for retirement and medical needs?
I am glad that MND is looking to extend the lease buyback scheme to larger flats, 4-room and above, to broaden the avenues for those who are in need of cash. I think this is a move in the right direction. With this, I end with my support for the Budget.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The elderly are afraid of three things: one, seeing a doctor; two, going to the hospital; and three, receiving the bill.
Now that we have the Pioneer Generation Package, residents told me they no longer need to worry; they can now have peace of mind.
A pioneer citizen who is 65 this year, can benefit from the Package for 35 years if he lives up to 100. With the $8 billion fund, we can make sure this package will not be discontinued midway, so people can be further assured.
The Pioneer Generation will have lifelong care; the second generation can now heave a sigh of relief. A resident, whose mother is in her 70s, asked me, \"Will my mother's MediShield premiums continue to rise in the future?\" I told
Page: 114
him, \"No, not only will it not rise, it will drop, maybe by half.\" After he heard my explanation, he heaved a sigh of relief.
Another resident's mother is in her 80s. He asked me, \"What about me? My mother is in her 80s. Will it be the same?\" I told him, \"In your case, it would be even better, because your mother will receive enough MediSave top-up to pay for her MediShield premiums\". He, too, heaved a sigh of relief, and a big one as well!
The second generation hopes that the Budgets in the future would continue to be generous. In order to have a good Budget, we must have a good economy. In order for the society to be more united, more progressive and more caring, we must have sustainable development. Our economy must continue to transform, our companies must continue to adapt and productivity must continue to improve.
Only by doing this can today's second generation have the ability to look after the Pioneer Generation. In the future, we also hope that the third generation would have the ability to look after today's second generation.
So, let us strive together; every generation looking after another generation. May everybody live and work in peace and enjoy his golden years. Let us continue to be a unique Singapore.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, in my chitchats with union leaders, grassroots leaders and residents, feedback has been most positive. It is a good Budget with bold moves. A few of them asked me, when they turn 65, would they be able to join the Pioneer Generation. I explained to them why not. I told them, in my case, I am now 60 years old. In 1965, I was 11 years old. Since I was only a Primary 5 student, I do not qualify as one in the Pioneer Generation. I asked them, by the time I turn 65, how old would I have been in 1965? They thought for awhile – still 11 years old.
So, I told them, \"It does not matter how old I get – whether 65, 75, 85 – I cannot change the fact that I was only 11 years old in 1965. This is the reason why I will never be able to join the Pioneer Generation.\" One union leader heard this, and was really disappointed. He said, \"Oh, no! No hope, then.\"
I said, \"Yes, of course, there is hope.\" Today, we honour the generation before us. Years from now, if we continue to do well, if the Government is still clean, responsible and caring, if the Budget is still healthy, the generation after
Page: 115
us may decide to honour our generation as well. Therefore, yes, there is always hope.
To ensure that our Budget will always be good, year after year, of course, we must honour the past, take care of the present. But what is even more important is that we must prepare our economy, our businesses and our workforce for the future, so that we can sustain what we have today: good growth, good employment, good wage increases, and more importantly, the resources to do more good for our people.
We are seeing encouraging signs on the ground. Yesterday, Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa said that PIC has become a verb. I agree with him. Indeed, there are healthy signs that the economy is shifting to a new track. However, we are not full steam ahead yet.
Productivity gain has been low. The good news is we have stopped the decline in 2013 from minus 2% to 0%. But the bad news is there was no increase in 2013. There are many reports of productivity and innovation in the media. My union leaders asked me, \"What happened? Are those innovation and productivity gains for real? If so, how could productivity gain be zero for last year?\"
I have to find simple ways to explain to my union leaders. Let us say labour productivity across the sectors, across companies, across workers, range from 0% to 200%. And let us say the overall average of labour productivity is 100%. Basically, there are two forces at work. One force is pushing up the labour productivity towards 102%, 103%. Another force is pressing down labour productivity towards 99%, 98% and so on. If these two forces are equal – up cancels out down – we will end up having zero. And that is what happened in 2013.
What is this negative force that is pushing down our labour productivity? Back to the earlier example. If overall average labour productivity is 100%, imagine, if those sectors with labour productivity of less than 100% – that is, 30%, 50%, 70% – if they continue to grow and hire more workers, at that level of productivity, which is lower than the national average, they will bring down the overall average national labour productivity. This is the averaging-down effect.
There are many sectors in Singapore today that are growing and they are below our national average in terms of labour productivity. These sectors range
Page: 116
from cleaning, construction, security, retail, landscaping, cashiers, ticket sales, waiters, material handling, pest control, light goods vehicle drivers, low-end production and so on. I am very sure our interpreters will have problems catching up with me, but I am rushing through just to show that, indeed, we do have many sectors in Singapore today that are still below national average and, worse is, they are still growing very fast in terms of manpower requirements.
These sectors, using outdated tools, equipment and methods, continue to be manpower- and labour-intensive. If nothing is done to improve these sectors, they will keep averaging down the overall national labour productivity.
What about the positive force – the one that is pushing up our labour productivity in Singapore? When we transform existing sectors, whether they are above or below the national average, as long as we transform them and we improve skills and productivity sector by sector, they will add to improvement to our labour productivity. Or when we grow new sectors that have higher labour productivity than the national average, again, as they employ more people, they will average up our national level productivity.
Therefore, as long as we are able to create new jobs – good and better jobs with good productivity and good pay – we will be able to progressively upgrade the labour productivity in Singapore. For our national labour productivity gain to go up, we need to up the positive and down the negative. Only when the positive force is stronger than the negative force will we then see a net gain in our national labour productivity.
To up the positive, all existing jobs, good or bad, we must make them better. We must turn old manufacturing into new manufacturing. We must turn old services into new services. We must try to professionalise every job – it does not matter whether they are high or low-end jobs. Every job can be professionalised. Ask the gardener in Japan; ask the cleaner in Germany; ask the waiter in USA. They will tell you that it is possible to professionalise every job.
At the same time, we must create more new jobs, especially jobs of the future, to meet the aspirations of our people, especially the younger generation – from future manufacturing to future services, those driven by technology, innovation and knowledge, so that we can be more future-ready than the competition.
Page: 117
At the same time, we need to down or lessen the negative. Many jobs in Singapore today are still not good enough. They are done in the way many years behind other developed countries. Cheap labour was an easy solution of the past, but not anymore. Instead of being a laggard, we must strive to be an early adopter of best practices, technology solutions, especially labour-saving devices in the Asia Pacific and, better still, in the world.
Putting them together – up the positive, down the negative – means we have to upgrade and professionalise existing jobs. We have to attract good jobs of the future and, at the same time, we must be prepared to transform low-wage, low-skilled sectors to become less labour intensive. If we can do all that, I believe 2% to 3% gain in labour productivity can be within our reach.
Several Members, yesterday and today, said that it is only natural to ask for more during the Budget debate. I agree with them because I am asking for more, too. I am not asking for more to be in Budget 2014, but I am asking and calling for more action outside of this Parliament, on the ground.
More action by all agencies, businesses, industry bodies, unions, workers and consumers, too. The Labour Movement walks our talk. We are doing more on the ground. The Labour Members who spoke before me have shared with this House how we are strengthening our 4Ps support for all collars, ages and nationalities of workers.
At the same time, we are updating the wage structure, too. In the past, when we tried to move away from the seniority-based system, the Labour Movement spearheaded the reduction of the minimum and maximum ratio in companies and job sectors. When we tried to minimise job losses during the downturn, the Labour Movement spearheaded the flexible wage system.
Today, as we strive for quality growth, the Labour Movement is championing the Progressive Wage Model to support this transition towards quality growth. We are happy that the Labour Movement is not alone. Together with many businesses and workers supported by agencies, we are doing more and leading the way in this process of change. For example, in conservancy cleaning, with ride-on sweepers, cleaners can now clean pavements, drains and grass patches easier, smarter and safer. Much faster and, at the same time, save labour and earn higher wages. In landscaping, workers can now cut grass using a remote controlled grass-cutting robot. Again, faster, with less labour and higher salary.
Page: 118
In hotels, hydraulic pumps under the bed help the mature worker to clean the hotel room easier, smarter, safer and faster, too. Being able to clean more rooms means more pay for the workers and, at the same time, it means less need for manpower for the hotels.
In the marine sector, welders have now become operators of welding machines. Instead of doing welding by hand, they now operate the welding machines. Again, they can do their job now faster, with more consistent standards, and at the same time, higher salary and they are able to work to an older age.
In food factories, installation of packaging machines has improved productivity by many times. Again, higher wages with fewer workers. In F&B, the use of mobile ordering, installation of up-to-date kitchen equipment, nurturing of management trainees are helping some F&Bs to grow faster and more profitable, too. Workers are, at the same time, paid better.
Some Members may not be aware that the perfect soft-boiled egg is cooked to 64 degrees Celsius. Anything lower than that will make the egg too raw; anything higher than that will make the egg too cooked. How do they ensure that every egg is soft-boiled to 64 degrees Celsius? An F&B outlet, Eighteen Chefs, has recently installed a machine that will produce egg after egg at 64 degrees Celsius and it will always turn up eggs that are perfect every time. It makes the jobs of the workers easier, faster, safer, and yet, at the same time, because of higher productivity, they are paid more, too.
In security, a central monitoring system enables security guards to monitor multiple sites at the same time. As a result, less manpower is needed and more pay for the workers. In electronic manufacturing, PMETs are being trained to become T-shaped – horizontal skills and deep vertical skills. As a result, they are more productive, more competitive and, more importantly, more employable, too.
In shopping malls, landlords are now helping tenants with recruitment and conducting trainings onsite, so that these SMEs in the shopping malls can send their workers for training to improve their skills, productivity and wages.
In a growing number of sectors, we are also seeing the upgrading of ITE and polytechnic graduates into professionals and specialists through professional accreditations. By breaking the glass ceiling for the ITE and polytechnic graduates,
Page: 119
more are now able to move up the skill, productivity, job and wage ladder.
The list goes on. If Members feel that these illustrations are just commonsense, I agree with you. Unfortunately, after years of high growth in manpower and unskilled labour, commonsense is not so common on the ground anymore.
I am very glad that some are changing, but at the same time, we are sad that some still resist change. They would rather go out of business or get out of Singapore than to change and upgrade their operations here. It is their choice, but workers are the ones who will suffer the pain most.
The world is changing fast and waits for no one. We need a greater and broader sense of urgency. Every change we make today may not always turn out right tomorrow. But if you do not take risk and responsibility, as advocated by Member Dr Janil Puthucheary yesterday, I am very sure many things will turn out wrong in the future.
When a dog bites a man, it is no news. But when a man bites a dog, it is big news.
My speech today is very much a \"dog bites man\" kind of speech, but I believe in what I say, what I see and how I feel. Manpower has been, and will always be, our most critical resource.
There are three types of bricklayers. The first type, the good type, will look at their job as laying bricks one by one. The better type will look at their jobs as building walls – wall by wall. But the best type will look at their job as building houses, schools and hospitals.
We all want our workers to be of the best kind. We want them to be engaged, motivated and to always give their very best. But then, management, organisations, leaders, are we at the same time prepared to engage them and embrace them wholeheartedly?
We must help them to strive for better skills, better productivity, better jobs and better pay. We must strive to make every job a better job, every worker a better worker. If we do that, then we will have good business, good economy and good Budget year after year for many years to come. With that, Mdm
Page: 120
Speaker, I support the Motion.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to inform you that like all my colleagues who spoke before me, most of my residents and I feel that we must support this year's Budget wholeheartedly because it is very special in its inclusion of a Pioneer Generation Package. Many hearts have been won. Most residents say that our Government cares and dares to act boldly, decisively to protect our seniors and help their children bear a financial burden with a master stroke, never seen before. And they applaud it!
At our dialogue, some Singaporeans felt left out. These are younger Singaporeans, in particular, NSmen who felt that they, too, should have the benefits provided by the Pioneer Generation Package.
Such a response shows a lack of appreciation for our pioneers' spirit when they gritted their teeth and took on any job they could in the early years of Independence. It shows, too, that the Government's aim to remind Singaporeans about how a strong pioneering spirit lies beneath the success we enjoy today has not hit home. Perhaps, this has to do with how our elderly people are being perceived in society and the sudden accolades for our elderly, who are often portrayed as frail and weak, have caught the younger Singaporeans by surprise.
The objective of this special package acknowledges our pioneers who embodied DNAs of resilience, sacrifice and mutual help that contributed immeasurably to Singapore's survival in a harsh, hostile world. Without these brave individuals, there would not have been the prosperous Singapore that many of us take for granted today.
Let us celebrate the lives of our pioneers as we continue to build on the strong social, economic and cultural foundations which were achieved with their unwavering dedication. Let us celebrate their lives wholeheartedly without thoughts about how other efforts to protect or safeguard the nation should also be given credit. Make this gesture of appreciation with genuine gratitude in our hearts, for many of our pioneers have little, practically none, to save for their retirement due to poor education and lowly-paid jobs.
Page: 121
This Budget provides support for pioneers financially and reconnects them with society. We, who have benefited from their efforts decades ago, should now support in spirit and thus give meaning to the idea of a compassionate and inclusive society.
To younger Singaporeans who do not realise the extent of the self-sacrifice our pioneers made in the extremely tough years following Independence, try to ask if we are serving our country well and not whether our country has served us well.
We should emulate our pioneers' example by doing the best we can, for our family, for our children, for Singapore. I am not dismissing the efforts different groups of people are making to defend the country, to grow the economy or to foster a strong cultural identity. I believe that all efforts will be duly recognised by future generations in due course. For Budget 2014, the Pioneer Generation Package is intended to assure pioneers that we are grateful and want to do more to make them healthy and happy in their golden years. It also teaches young Singaporeans to respect and appreciate our elders.
A second observation is that many residents asked if the money set aside to top up non-pioneers' MediSave accounts will be adequate. Many in the sandwiched class worry about depleting their own MediSave accounts because of their parents' increasingly high healthcare costs, which mean that their children may suffer from the same problem looking after them in the future. This is understandably worrying for Singaporeans whose parents are not pioneers and suffer from chronic and other illnesses. More public education is needed to assure Singaporeans that besides MediSave top-ups, there will be more subsidies at the polyclinic and, for large hospitalisation bills, they will get help under MediShield Life. Some residents who are in need but do not come under existing help schemes should approach the community or grassroots leaders to seek assistance.
It is clear that we have to work harder on public communication programmes, so that all Singaporeans understand the significance of the Pioneer Generation Package. In simple terms, it benefits both the old and the young as more subsidies for the old would mean a diminished burden for the young looking after them. Our grassroots leaders must be deployed to explain this to residents. At the level of the individual who has to support aged parents, more MediSave and polyclinic subsidies from the Government means that less cash is needed for health-related expenses. In short, younger Singaporeans who are paying for their parents' healthcare costs will benefit from this
Page: 122
generous Budget.
The Budget delivers a moral message that goes beyond teaching the importance of appreciation and gratitude to our parents and the Pioneer Generation who have given us what we enjoy having today. Placing pioneers at the centre of the Budget underlines our belief that Singapore stands for self-reliance, love for our children, concern for their future and willingness to serve the community. The Budget reflects a country of resilient people who are grateful and determined to thrive on challenges to take Singapore into the next lap.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, at the Budget dialogue held at my constituency, many residents expressed their support for the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Package to look after the 450,000 Pioneer Generation Singaporeans. They are our national treasures. The Pioneer Generation Fund symbolises that our society not only pays attention to economic development but also values the importance of cultivating traditional values among our people. Respecting the elderly and being grateful for what we have today are indispensable values for building a sustainable society. I am pleased that the Government is doing it now and, even more so, to see that we have the ability to set aside such a large sum to look after our national treasures because the Government has been practising prudent financial policies over the years.
I have two suggestions for the relevant Government agencies to consider.
First, there is a group of Singaporeans who do not seem to get any benefits from the Budget and they are none other than the loving caregivers who wholeheartedly look after the elderly parents or grandparents at home. Most of them are single women. Some look after their sick relatives full-time, some part-time. They spend most of their savings on their parents' medical expenses. After their parents pass on, they often face financial difficulties when buying a flat or getting a job. I hope the Government can give more housing grants to these caregivers and help them return to the workforce, so they do not have to worry about their life after retirement.
On the other hand, media reports show that more and more Singaporeans are living alone. The reasons are varied, including divorce, widowed and separation. They face many challenges, the foremost being their children's
Page: 123
education. For this group of needy Singaporeans, we should give them more attention. At the annual conference of the PAP Women's Wing held on 8 February 2014, I proposed four suggestions in relation to senior care, namely, healthcare, housing, employment and a pro-elderly society. I hereby reiterate the Women's Wing stance and hope that the Government can take them into consideration, so that we can look after our elders' welfare even better.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the recently announced Budget. This year's Budget builds on the schemes introduced through previous years' Budgets but is especially generous where our seniors are concerned. I am happy to find out more about the Pioneer Generation Package, which I feel is magnanimous. And I am pleasantly surprised by the increased personal income tax relief for parents.
To me, these provisions underscore two important things – that we must continue to value our pioneers and seniors, and for those of us who are taking care of and providing for our parents, the Government will chip in and lend a hand. In other words, taking care of our seniors must be a collective effort – it cannot just be the responsibility of the Government to provide for them. As children, it is only right that we continue to provide for our parents to the best of our ability; as employers, it is commendable when we are able to provide for the employment of our seniors; and, as a society, it is only human for us to support them in every way we can.
When I talk to senior residents, or residents who belong to our Pioneer Generation, I find something quite consistent among them. They are usually very positive about life and the lives they lead; they are generous in nature, yet expect little in return; and they value their ability to be self-reliant and independent, usually reluctant to seek help unless really necessary.
Being among the last few speakers for today, what I say or propose may have already been put forth by other esteemed Members in the House. Nonetheless, let me still do so.
For a start, I would like to make a pitch for our seniors who wish to continue to work even after retirement. The Government has introduced the Special Employment Credit (SEC) scheme in 2011 and enhanced it in 2012, as well as introduced a special enhancement for 2015 in light of the increase in CPF contribution by employers. Under the current scheme, up to 8% of their monthly
Page: 124
salaries, capped at $4,000, will be co-paid by the Government. For work done in 2015, the enhancement is another 0.5%, which works out to up to 8.5% of monthly salaries. Although this has made it more attractive for companies to employ older Singaporeans, I hope that the SEC can be enhanced yet again, so that employers will be further incentivised to employ our seniors.
In addition, many of our seniors value their sense of independence. They travel on their own using public transport, and the senior concession cards for those aged 60 years old and above have certainly come in handy. However, each card is valid for only five years. Replacement is required thereafter. May I propose that the senior concession cards be given as a lifetime card with no expiration date? Replacement is only for lost or damaged cards. And for our seniors who are part of the Pioneer Generation, a nice gesture would be to provide free public transport passes for them. There are only 450,000 seniors who belong to our Pioneer Generation. Let them travel around this nation of ours, which they have helped build, as they please. There are many such seniors who value their independence, the ability to be mobile and move around without having to depend on their children or others.
One such senior is Uncle Tan. Despite being more than 65 years old, he still works, albeit part-time, earning about $1,000 a month. When I met him at his home during one of my block visits, he lamented the difficulty he had getting a full-time job once he turned 60 years old. He is still fit as a fiddle, walks without any walking aids, very eloquent and has a good memory as well as a jolly sense of humour. However, the one thing that has deteriorated somewhat is his eyesight. So, he no longer drives. But he takes the bus and train to get around and to get to work.
Greater incentives for employers to employ our seniors will make it even more attractive for our seniors, such as Uncle Tan, to be employed on a full-time basis. Free transport passes will help seniors, such as Uncle Tan, get around as they please without having to worry about topping up their cards or replacing them. We would not be here without our seniors, our Pioneer Generation of Singapore. Let us extend this little gesture of gratitude and love to them.
On a related note, I would also like to request the Government to consider introducing parent care leave of at least three days a year. As we espouse the virtues of filial piety and collective responsibility towards our elders and seniors, it is also important to make provisions for those among us who are working and yet have responsibilities towards the care of our aged parents. Just as the Government has agreed to pay for three of the six days of childcare leave
Page: 125
without medical certificate for working parents, I hope that the Government can consider doing the same for this proposed parent care leave. Three days a year, and making this provision to civil servants for a start, will send a strong signal to all employers and companies that responsibility and care towards our families include both children and parents, and provision ought to be made for this for employees. The Government can consider how to co-pay and finance parent care leave with private employers and companies.
I am aware the proposals I have put forth – greater employment incentives for companies to employ seniors, free transport passes for our Pioneer Generation and parent care leave – will require an even bigger Budget. But maybe the Government can consider increasing sin taxes even further, by a few more percentage points, particularly for more expensive alcoholic drinks, such as wines. I am no expert in this but I am sure Deputy Prime Minister Tharman and MOF would be able to work this out. I am sure those who indulge in smoking, drinking or gambling do not mind indulging in our Pioneer Generation instead.
On a separate note, while many are pleased with the Pioneer Generation Package and increased financial assistance for the elderly, as well as expanded assistance to SMEs, there are some who feel that still not enough is being done for middle-income earners or middle-income households. This is where we ought to take a step back and look at this Budget with respect to previous years' Budgets and existing assistance schemes. We cannot look at this Budget in silo because, with each annual Budget, schemes and provisions are introduced which span several years. Hence, there are overlapping assistance schemes to ensure continuity and seamlessness of support.
In this year's Budget, the expanded bursaries for Institutes of Higher Learning, assistance schemes for SMEs and Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS), are all targeted to assist middle-income households. In last year's Budget, the revised property tax for owner occupied residential properties and increased personal income tax rebate, were introduced and also targeted to assist middle-income households. Hence, I must iterate that while more has been done to help lower-income and older Singaporeans, middle-income Singaporeans have not been left out. However, I would like to urge the Government to collate the various provisions, benefits and assistance schemes available for middle-income households and earners, above and beyond this year's Budget, and make this information easy to understand and accessible.
Page: 126
At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year's Budget builds on the various assistance schemes that were introduced in previous years' Budgets. However, this year's Budget is unique in that the focus of the assistance being offered is geared towards the Pioneer Generation or our senior citizens.
The Pioneer Generation Package, estimated at about $8 billion, was set aside to finance medical costs that may be a source of worry for our elderly. While we welcome the allocation of funds to help our senior citizens cope with healthcare costs when the situation requires it, we must also not forget the preventive measures.
We find that the number of diabetes or heart patients, obese and smokers within our community have all increased from 2004 to 2010. Although medical costs can be financed through the various assistance schemes like CHAS, MediShield Life, MediSave Top-Ups, MediFund, and now, the Pioneer Generation Package, I am also concerned with the state of our health in general. Optimal health will most likely guarantee a good quality of life, freedom and the ability to live independently during old age.
Even though various programmes and initiatives have been implemented to increase awareness towards disease prevention and a healthy lifestyle, perhaps so far, they have been insufficient or are not so effective. Will the Government review the current programmes and initiatives, and are there plans to introduce a more structured programme to manage these health issues, especially since our society is rapidly ageing? I hope that the government can share its plans, if there are any, and set aside sufficient funding for such programmes and measures.
At the same time, based on feedback from the Pioneer Generation and senior citizens, we find that there are still many of them who do not really understand what assistance schemes are available or what benefits that they can receive, be it from this year's Budget, previous years' Budgets or the schemes currently available.
Can the Government help to collate information about all the available assistance schemes and programmes for our Pioneer Generation and senior citizens, and share this information, whether through the mass media or other publications? This information can also be shared at places of worship like the
Page: 127
mosques and public areas that are easily accessible, such as community clubs, supermarkets and libraries. Most importantly, the information should be communicated clearly and can be easily understood by our senior citizens and Pioneer Generation.
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Being one of the last remaining speakers, it is, indeed, a challenge. So, please allow me to begin with a question. How many of us remember what we were doing when we were 16? Where were we, what were we doing, what is our abiding memory of that time of our life?
For the average teenager today, at 16, most would be in Secondary 4. It will be perhaps a little bit mundane: a daily schedule of school, home, homework, rest, school, the occasional berating by parents and weekends of enrichment classes or co-curricular activities. There may be evenings of being on the basketball court, or meeting with friends at the movies, hoping to get home in time before curfew and, again, not getting a telling-off from parents. The environment would generally be a safe and cocooned one. One where opportunities are before us, waiting to be seized.
But let us, for the moment, toss our mind back to when being 16 was a totally different ball game – our pioneers, our forefathers, the men and women who saw us through the early days. Being 16 in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was acutely different from what we have today. For many, there was not the opportunity to be an average teenager. No such things as iPhones or even colour TV, no shopping centres to window shop at. At 16 in the 1940s, times were beyond tough. The war was continuing, people struggled to survive at the whims and fancies of a foreign occupier. Rather than the burgers that we have today, tapioca, sweet potatoes and a large serving of hardship were on the dinner table. I visit the Kranji War Cemetary often as it is quite near to my constituency. On a recent walk, I spent time at the Chinese Memorial and one name stood out – Lim Hood Tong. He was a Private and he was all of 19 years when he gave his life in defence of this land, not a nation as yet. That was the reality of the 1940s.
The 1950s gave way to perhaps just slightly less instability than during the Occupation years, but it was not any easier. Pre-Independence struggles were aplenty, the battle of ideologies. But on the human level, a 16-year-old in the
Page: 128
1950s was certainly no walk in the park as well.
Many families were large, meaning that there were many mouths to feed and an early start in maturity. Sixteen and working was certainly not out of the ordinary: helping parents to run a stall, doing the odd errands, starting out formal employment was all part and parcel of being 16. Education? Yes, many families regarded it as important. But could it feed a family immediately? And so, during the 1950s, many tough choices had to be made by families.
Then, came the 1960s – fast and furious, \"swinging 60s\", as many regard it now. But, again, for the average 16-year-old of the 1960s, the tunes on the radio may have attracted attention and so did the glitz and glamour of the era. But, again, the reality of the decade of our Independence still meant tough choices. There were racial tensions, Konfrontasi, joblessness, crime, gangs, all, again, not exactly what we would expect of the idyllic teenage years that we have today. So, when we became independent, student activism was still rife, but so was poverty, so was crime. At our Independence, we were given just three years to come crawling back.
But look at where we are today. It was upon the shoulders of generations of 16-year-olds that have gone before us that we have a society that is safe, secure and full of opportunities that the generations before would have craved for. But they were of a tough and stoic generation. I became a new father just one day shy of six weeks ago and I have come to the realisation that parenthood comes with a seemingly impossible set of responsibilities. But most of all, I think for most parents, the hope is our children will continue to have the opportunities as they grow up, that their generation will continue to benefit from the hard work and efforts of the generations before them.
But perhaps, more importantly, it is that they remember that it is upon the blood, sweat and tears of the pioneers before us that we have come thus far, that we are able to reap those same benefits. My grandfather was born in 1910. At 16, he came to Singapore and became a printing apprentice. Like so many of his generation, he gave his all and persevered. He raised a large family and eventually managed to set up his own printing press. He made efforts to give back to society, representing the clans, helping to build schools, funding hospitals. But yet he was to suddenly leave behind a large family to fend for themselves when he passed away in an accident. Like many other families of the time, health was not the best. For many of them, nutrition was a problem and so many families faced the same situation.
Page: 129
I remember my eldest aunt reminding me always that my grandmother, who was a Cantonese opera singer, fought very hard against the banks of the day to save the family home and to support the children, and through little efforts building up, she gave her all and managed to send almost all her children to University.
My maternal grandmother was a seamstress. She raised a family of six in a small flat in Whampoa. My youngest uncle still stays there. And my mother shared with me how in the early days when things were expensive for them, that she would spend time studying, doing her homework under a dim light and had to rock her baby brother with her toe while he was sleeping in his little 摇篮 or cradle. They did not have much. Sharing a little ice-ball at that time among four siblings came naturally. But they, again, like so many in their generation, persevered and did their best despite their circumstances.
These are just some of the stories of the generations before us, of their efforts in building a better life for their families. It is again through their efforts that we have arrived at where we are today.
And so, like many of my parliamentary colleagues before me, I applaud this Budget for its comprehensiveness in ensuring that as many people benefit as possible. But most of all, I applaud it for what the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) sets out to achieve.
However, I would prefer that we see it less as a tribute to our pioneers, less as an effort to honour them. That is, in my mind, what we should not be doing through the PGP. To honour our pioneers, I urge more, so that their stories do not fade away. Not the stories of revolutionaries or the great men of the generations before us. That is the job of historians. But the simple heartfelt stories of ordinary men and women who made extraordinary sacrifices to help Singaporeans and their families succeed. I, therefore, call on MOE/MCCY to preserve and showcase these memories, lest we forget and allow them to fade from our collective memory as the years go by. That pioneering spirit cannot die with them. We can all continue to be pioneers in our own right. To allow a future generation to continue to be hungry for progress is, in itself, a tribute.
I also echo the calls of Members like Mr Heng Chee How and Mr David Ong in reconsidering the hidden costs of ageism. I add my voice to the call by Mr David Ong to consider the eventual abolishment of the retirement age. This was done in the United Kingdom in 2011. To me, work should not be considered a privilege. It is a right. And age, in itself, is not a determinant of worth in our
Page: 130
workplaces. For if truly meritocracy was what helped our pioneers to build a fair and just society that we have today, then age in itself should not be a barrier to meritocracy. So, I urge MOM to consider this and, with it, naturally, the differentiated CPF rates will become a topic of the past because work has become a right. And so we speak of honouring our pioneers. Let us not put artificial barriers where none should exist. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, in his Budget speech, has urged us to rethink our social norms and perhaps there is no time better than now.
I also hope that the details of the panel to review PGP appeals be announced quickly and that it will have a gentle hand in reviewing the appeals. I hope that while so many stand to benefit, that they also know that they are benefiting and can make use of them.
And, so, it remains, if the PGP is not an honour or a tribute, what is it? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see the PGP more as an overdue fulfilment of our filial duty towards our pioneers as a society. We owe it to them that we have the Singapore of today. Our safety, our progress, our growth and our success were due to their early sacrifices. So, let it not just be a simple \"Thank you\" and \"Thank you very much\", but a lingering handshake and a warm embrace for an entire generation of Singaporeans. Because if we truly wish to honour them, let them not be forgotten and consigned to the back annals of history. Let us, as an entire country, do whatever we can to remember them and give them their rightful place in society.
In ending, at the end of January, the PAP.sg, the seniors group, made a recommendation and released a paper. I am glad that many of the recommendations have been addressed in the Budget and I certainly look forward to the Committee of Supply where more of the details, such as MediShield Life, would be made available. But more importantly, there was a final recommendation in the paper put forth by PAP.sg which was for the non-tangible factors to be remembered and focused on: that not just our pioneers, but our seniors and our elders in our society should be valued through our collective love, care and concern, of all of us around them, and that we continue to respect them and to give them the dignity of their place in our society. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.
Page: 131
Ms Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate and to support the Budget.
I would like to first commend the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for a caring Budget that further strengthens our social safety net and assures Singaporeans that this Government will continue to do more to support those from lower and middle-income families. The benefits under the Pioneer Generation Package, as well as provisions for our seniors, older workers, the disabled and those with special needs, are welcomed measures. They demonstrate that this Government has listened to Singaporeans' desire to extend greater help to the less advantaged among us.
The strategic shift in approach from one of tough love to one that is more supportive of individuals, especially those unable to help themselves, reflects a willingness to cast aside old formulas in a changing context. Some may call this a leftward shift. I see it as investments in the social sector that are overdue and necessary, if we are to progress together.
Sir, just as how the Finance Minister had said that a Budget Statement is not complete without its fair share of excise duties on tobacco, liquor and betting, my speech is not complete until I speak up for culture and the arts, especially since this will be my last one at a Budget debate.
Such intangibles are my bread and butter: art, identity and belonging; the day-to-day practices of mutual respect – and respectful disagreement. These are some of the most fragile, ambiguous and unpredictable domains of human experience. Not, at first glance, the business of politics, but they are also amongst the most powerful and meaningful. They can make the difference between a liveable life, and a life worth living. They offer no quick fix. But as we seek various economic and social strategies for quality growth and an inclusive society, considerations of art, culture and heritage challenge us to think big, to think beyond borders, and point the way to doing so.
Good artists know what it takes to make a big picture, because that is literally their job. Contrary to cliché, they know you do not get there by being vague or airy-fairy. Regardless of the materials you are working with – paint, language, technology, bodies – you interrogate your chosen themes rigorously and relentlessly. Sometimes, the result is literally big like the Sistine Chapel or the long inkwork scrolls of the Chinese literati. At other times, it is as small and perfect as a Japanese haiku, but it contains multitudes.
Page: 132
A big picture was made in Singapore recently. A moving picture. Anthony Chen's film \"Ilo Ilo\" or \"爸妈不在家\" is a poignant story, set against the backdrop of the Asian Financial Crisis in Singapore, and chronicles the relationship between a family of three and their Filipino helper. It made history when it became the first Singapore film to win the coveted Camera d'OR award at Cannes last year, as well as four Golden Horse awards in Taiwan, including Best Feature Film. A very Singaporean film about a Singapore story has managed to resonate with millions around the world.
Anthony Chen's achievement and the international success of \"Ilo Ilo\" offers some themes for us to ponder as our nation moves forward into the next 50 years. I would like to touch on three of them here. First, making creativity a national priority. Second, supporting our creative industries. And, finally, preserving our sense of home.
Sir, we need to view creativity as a national priority. The example of Anthony and his team is an inspiration to all Singapore artists, but the bigger picture here is not about filmmaking. It is about having the confidence to contribute something original and unique to the world. It is about what keeps you going, and what keeps you invested in your work, when no one is invested in you. Tom and David Kelley, the team behind leading innovation and design firm, IDEO, call this \"creative confidence\" – recognising that we all have the capacity to create change in the world through new ideas, solutions and approaches.
Sir, these are the kinds of qualities we need as a society, and in our people, if we are to remain adaptable and agile as technological innovations bring on the next wave of change to global economies and job markets. Innovation can be a wonderful thing, but it does kill jobs, especially those vulnerable to automation or outsourcing. One immediate risk is rising inequality and social dislocation.
One of the most important ways in which governments can help people through this dislocation is through education – an education that prepares our people for an uncertain but exciting future. To this end, management guru Peter Drucker, in 1957, observed that in an age of innovation, \"a practical education must prepare a man for work that does not yet exist and cannot yet be clearly defined. To be able to do this, a man must have learnt to learn.\" Think about that for a moment. Do we have an education system that prepares our people for the future? Can we, hand on heart, say that our students are learning to learn
Page: 133
– and learning to love it?
If this Government is serious about long-term quality growth based on innovation and deeper capabilities, a major change in attitude towards education and educational outcomes is required. First, we need to urgently move away from a narrow, grades-obsessed definition of success, and place the focus more squarely on the process of learning, and learning to learn. Like Dr Janil Puthucheary, I agree that the appetite for new ideas and risk-taking must start from young. Yet, our streaming policy and high-stakes testing environment perpetuate the fear of failure, and penalise us for getting wrong answers. How ironic, since such experiences are integral to creativity, learning and innovation.
Second, we need to debunk the myth that creativity is only for artists. Creativity is a kind of literacy that anyone can develop, whether you are an engineer, manager, salesperson or Member of Parliament. At school, the arts and arts education are just some of the ways to cultivate the creative, collaborative and critical thinking skills that are needed in today's world and in the future. By integrating the arts more fully into our core curriculum, we give all students access to its benefits and not just the privileged few who can afford enrichment programmes.
Sir, we need to build creative capabilities in our leaders, too, in both the public and private sectors. A generation of leaders who believe they can respond creatively to a changing world, who can imagine and build new systems and services, as well as rebuild declining ones. A generation of leaders, who accept that they may not have all the answers and are willing to have a more open and transparent process of citizen engagement so that ideas can flourish. The \"Our Singapore Conversation\" last year was a good start, and showed that Singaporeans can be actively part of this process of co-creation. I, therefore, agree with Nominated Member Laurence Lien's call to make this dialogue a more permanent process.
Sir, it is time to view creativity as a national priority. I fully agree with Minister Lim Swee Say. It is no longer enough to have the first kind of bricklayers, just laying bricks. We need more of the third kind he talks of – the bricklayers who can imagine themselves building homes and hospitals. The ability to create, build and spread ideas is one of the most powerful tools for growth. When we talk about building \"resilience\" as a nation, we should also acknowledge that the future is unpredictable, and that our ability to react, adapt and embrace challenges swiftly and with confidence, requires creativity. If we are serious about realising the economic vision laid out in this Budget
Page: 134
Statement, we need to connect productivity and resilience explicitly with creativity.
Next, Sir, I would like to speak up for the individuals and businesses, in particular, the micro-enterprises, who operate in what we often refer to as the \"creative economy\". These industries, broadly speaking, include activities, such as design, fashion, publishing, architecture, film, music, broadcast and digital media, and the performing and visual arts. The vibrancy of Singapore's creative industries is important, not only because it is an indication of the quality of our ideas and our innovativeness, but because it enables Singapore to stand out from other creative economies in its own way.
Many creative enterprises are small-scale businesses that face enormous challenges in the current business environment, including escalating rentals and increasing competition from international brands. Last year, the independent boutique called \"Blackmarket\", which was based at Orchard Central, had to close due to a steep increase in rental. It was one of the very few retail stores that stocked designed-in-Singapore fashion and accessories, and supported independent designers here.
While I am heartened by the Government's continued efforts to help our SMEs restructure and raise productivity, I hope the Government will not turn a blind eye to the challenges of the micro-enterprises that contribute to the creative culture of Singapore. Their operations are often too small or too labour-intensive to benefit from automation and they rarely have sufficient upfront capital or cashflow to upgrade and expand. Hansel, a Singapore womenswear label, wanted to take advantage of the PIC scheme to purchase a Point-of-Sale system recently. However, they were so cash-strapped that even raising the funds to pay for the system upfront, before being reimbursed from the PIC cash payout, was extremely difficult. I, therefore, join my fellow Nominated Member Mr Teo Siong Seng's call, as well as others' in this House, to help our micro-enterprises and SMEs survive and develop.
Sir, sometimes, this is not just about more funding. Grant funding is welcome but they tend to come with onerous application requirements and KPIs. Perhaps, larger companies with the resources and manpower find it easier to manage these processes. But designers running a two- or three-person outfit rarely have the capabilities to do so. In fact, a jewellery designer jokingly told me that, despite her five years' experience as Managing Director of an international advertising agency, she still finds it challenging to navigate the application process! Sir, to help our micro-enterprises access Government
Page: 135
funding, we must simplify the grant criteria and processes.
A dollar spent on a local product goes further than one spent on an import. To better support the presence of Singapore design in the market, could we consider \"cluster\" housing for creative enterprises in unused Government buildings or conserved spaces at affordable or low rents? Not only will this bring vibrancy to a precinct or neighbourhood, it builds a strong identity for Singapore's design culture, and international visitors have the unique opportunity to buy products they cannot get anywhere else.
Sir, we also need to broaden and soften the KPIs for this sector. Rather than looking at target sales and financials as outcomes, could we not give more value to other forms of impact, like the contributions they make to quality of life and Singapore's reputation internationally? After all, our creative industries have great potential to extend Singapore's soft power overseas. The success of home-grown fashion label Ong-Shunmugam on the runways of New York or at Paris Fashion Week has a tremendous knock-on effect on how Singapore is perceived as a creative hub. The international accolades for \"Ilo Ilo\" have thrown the spotlight not only on Singapore cinema, but on Singapore as a whole. Shown in over 30 territories across the world, it is a powerful way of projecting who we are, our stories and our creativity to a global audience.
Sir, the value of our creative industries lies in their ability to seed original ideas, nurture human capital, and play a role in cultural diplomacy. It is not enough for Singapore to be a host to international creative companies. We should also aspire to nurture our own Singapore brands, talents and enterprises in this sector. This has economic benefits, in terms of value capture and building economic resilience. But more importantly, it brings social benefits – it fosters our sense of national pride and identity through Singapore-inspired products, as well as inspires the next generation of creative talent for Singapore.
Sir, in the third and final section of my speech, I would like to touch on preserving a sense of home for Singaporeans.
Singapore's small size is often noted. We are a \"little red dot\". But as the population increases and the infrastructure groans, even as land usage continues to be intensified, many feel that Singapore is shrinking: they have less space to themselves and have been paying more for what they have.
The past few years have seen an outpouring of frustration from Singaporeans who feel that they have had to welcome too many foreigners too
Page: 136
fast. This has had an impact on wages and prices. The fact that such concerns have led to the heartfelt expression of a Singapore identity is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge lies in the risk of xenophobia – that we shrink to fit our tiny island by becoming small-minded and hard-hearted. The opportunity arises from the basic fact that we are much bigger than that. Space is tight. But our history is one of welcome and accommodation. Singapore has never only been for Singaporeans. That so many people of such diversity would express such a strong commitment to this place is something to be proud of.
If we lose our sense of compassion and generosity, our place in the economic pecking order will be the least of our worries. When I first joined Parliament in 2012, debate over the fate of Bukit Brown cemetery was raging. Pragmatism has prevailed and some exhumations are underway. But we all know it was a turning point. Many Singaporeans discovered a new passion for their heritage. Some even realised their own family history had lain hidden more or less under their noses for decades. The assumption that people will accept development at all costs can no longer be taken for granted. As Prof Wang Gungwu recently wrote about Bukit Brown in mind, \"For a community to thrive, it is vital for each to defend the right to preserve what its members want.\" The heritage phenomenon, he says, \"is a measure of cultural resilience, something that comes from living and caring for what is familiar.\"
Sir, in a recent paper published by the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Prof Joel Kotkin noted that great cities are safe, busy and sacred, and he rightly pointed out that Singapore has done very well in the first two areas. Safe – security; and busy – commerce. But something in Singapore is still not working well. Why do polls show Singaporeans as amongst the most pessimistic people in the world? Why is Singapore faring poorly in family formation and total fertility rate? Kotkin suggests that we re-evaluate the third aspect of urban success – the sacred.
Sacred spaces are found in those sites and experiences that make one feel an irrational commitment to a place. While our global city status has worked extremely well for Singapore from an economic point of view, there is incessant pressure for us to conform to a global pattern of living that obliterates differences.
Some Members of this House have noted that our malls have become crowded with the exact same stores found in London or Dubai; our neighbourhoods are rapidly gentrifying as traditional businesses make way for hip, upmarket restaurants and cafes. Other than increased prices and the cost of living that accompany this process of globalisation, our sense of place is
Page: 137
slowly eroding and, with it, the sacred space and sentimental ties that come from living and caring for what is familiar.
Boffins, bureaucrats and businesspeople may come up with ingenious ways to maximise the limited space available, but once we have built sky-high and tunnelled deep down, the only space we can still expand is the one in our hearts. Sir, we need to restore a sense of place, a sense of home, to this city if we are to nurture a strong community and the next generation of Singaporeans who will be emotionally connected to this country. To do so, we need to heed and seriously consider the calls and appeals by communities on issues of heritage and conservation.
In balancing the pressures of a global city with the emotional needs of Singaporeans and the imperatives of a small, young nation struggling to define itself against the world, we need to tread carefully, mindful of the meanings and histories of the ground we walk upon. Only then can we nurture the kinds of human capacities that are really needed – learning to do more with less, and to accommodate each other, as well as others, in our compact city.
Sir, when I first joined Parliament, I promised to view the debates of this House through a cultural lens. The Government's Budget Statement of Financial Year 2014 contains a commendable set of measures to assure our seniors and secure opportunities for our future.
When Prime Minister Lee spoke about a new strategic direction at the National Day Rally last year, he said this would take us down a different road from the one that brought us here so far. He also sounded some words of caution – there are risks and pitfalls we need to look out for, like undermining our self-reliance and saddling the next generation with the debts of our consumption. It would appear that this Budget has been carefully designed to avoid these risks.
But there is also another risk as we embark on this strategic direction, and that is, the risk of not following through on this vision with the required level of boldness and ambition. There are measures to support innovation and skills, but have we sufficiently set creativity as a national priority? Are we investing in an education system that nurtures creativity to future-proof our school-children? Are we embracing creativity as a key strategy to build resilience in our economy?
There are measures to support SMEs, but will enough be done to support micro-enterprises, in particular those in the creative sector? Are we giving
Page: 138
sufficient weight to the potential of this sector to instill pride locally and expand our influence internationally?
There is a substantive package to honour the contributions of the Pioneer Generation, but will enough be done to honour their memories and their connection to this place, which are also the memories and connections of their descendants and future generations to this place called home?
I, therefore, urge the Government to have faith in its vision for Singapore, in a way that will inspire Singaporeans to continue to have faith in Singapore's future. I can think of no better way for the Minister for Finance to mark Singapore's 50th birthday than for him to deliver a Budget Statement in 2015 that articulates and supports an uplifting vision of what the next 50 years hold for Singaporeans and Singapore.
No pressure, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, but I await with bated breath! With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I remember in the late 1960s and early 1970s, neighbours and friends would come over to our house to share news about job openings at factories and construction sites all over the island. Word of mouth was an effective way to hire staff then.
In those exciting times, anything that could help put food on the table was worth a try. I came to know of Singaporeans who dropped out of school to work, especially those that came from large and needy families.
For many of these young workers then, there were no contract negotiations, unknown employment terms and very little or no protection at the workplace. But it did not matter as they would still put in an honest day's work and look forward to an honest day's wage at the end of the day. This probably epitomised the spirit of our Pioneer Generation workforce during that period in our history.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget in recognising the invaluable contributions made by the Pioneer Generation. I am, however, of the opinion that the Government should err on the side of goodwill and generosity when it comes to determining who will qualify for the Pioneer Generation Package.
Page: 139
The Government is right to acknowledge that the Pioneer Generation started working at a younger age but to set the bar at 16 years old at Independence is a little too precise and will exclude Singaporeans who had to quit school to work during those times.
The Employment Act of 1968 does not preclude anyone under the age of 16 from working. And if we were to look at the Act closely, it even allows children as young as 13 years old to work in a non-industrial environment.
While the Act seeks to protect young children from being exploited, the clarity of the age criteria and type of work a young person can do, as stated in section 68, does reflect social and societal acceptance of teenagers below the age of 16 joining the workforce during those times.
The Government has also acknowledged this fact by allowing people who marginally miss out on the precise criteria to appeal on a case-by-case basis. But what will the authority look for in an appeal? How does one prove that he or she was working before age 16 in an era where employment terms and contracts were mostly verbal for daily-rated and blue collar workers? And how will the Government explain why two citizens born in the same year but one is counted as part of the Pioneer Generation while the other is not?
Again, I ask the Government to err on the side of goodwill and generosity for people at the fringe of the cut-off age because it is difficult for these people to prove their pioneer status to begin with, and equally difficult for the authority to determine the veracity of their appeal.
Next, I wish to touch on the Pioneer Generation Package. The Pioneer Generation Package has addressed a fundamental concern of our elderly citizens – healthcare expenses. The package has even gone a step further by intending to fully cover the premiums of MediShield Life for citizens aged 80 and above in 2014. This is reassuring. However, I seek clarification from the Minister whether this premium relief will also be extended to members who will turn 80 years old in 2015 and beyond.
The Pioneer Generation Package will benefit the caregivers as well. Many elderly residents I spoke to do not want to saddle their children and loved ones with their medical expenses. I believe the package will address that concern in some ways.
Page: 140
While the package is timely, some are also questioning why we are honouring our pioneers with medical benefits and nothing else. What is the message we are sending to Singaporeans about ageing in Singapore? That apart from affordable healthcare cost, there is nothing exciting to look forward to when one ages in Singapore?
I believe we should also celebrate life and longevity. We are an ageing society and, with advances in medical science and technology, we are living longer and, likely, healthier as well. We are going to have generations of people with lots of time on their hands. These senior citizens are certainly not going to wait with bated breath for their next subsidised medical appointment or hospital stay.
The Pioneer Generation Package may help remove one more wrinkle of concern from the weather-beaten faces of our pioneers, but will it bring on a smile? We may hear one less sigh from the elderly about healthcare cost, but will we hear more laughter?
I learn more about life than death when I attend funeral wakes of elderly residents in Hougang. I learned that some of these elderly residents had a zest for life right up to the final days of their life. I learned that they would want to spend more time with their loved ones doing the things they like most. That healthcare cost assurance aside, many would not look forward to visiting the clinic or spending another day more in the hospitals even if it is completely free.
So, what will bring a smile or laughter to our pioneers beyond affordable healthcare assurance? Many Members in this House have already made some interesting suggestions. I am quietly confident those suggestions will bring cheers to this group of senior citizens.
It is important for the Government to look into improving the quality of life beyond healthcare assurance for our Pioneer Generation. We are an ageing society. All of us will grow old one day and we certainly want to live our sunset years in a society where life is worth living and celebrating.
Next, I want to talk about our Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). VWOs are the arms and legs to reach out to the community. They help to bring senior citizens together. They help to connect them with one another and with the rest of the community. They help the elderly combat loneliness. They may even play cupids for the elderly unknowingly.
Page: 141
VWOs were already at the forefront taking care of our Pioneer Generation before the Government decided to honour these senior citizens. Thus, to honour the Pioneer Generation without concurrently giving the supporting VWOs the extra incentive and funding to do more would be a letdown.
I am happy to see that there is an increase of $19.42 million in the operating expenditure of MSF this year to cater mainly to the provision of the Care and Share matching grants for donations raised by eligible VWOs.
I urge the Government to continue to keep these selfless volunteers in mind when coming up with policies in our ageing society.
Finally, I welcome the enhanced relief for parents and handicapped parents, spouse, sibling and child in Budget 2014. I am happy that the Government is giving dependants more recognition in this Budget.
Caring for a handicapped member of the household is a lifelong commitment and a drain on all types of resources, financial and social. While caring for handicapped parents can be a shared responsibility among family members, caring for a handicapped spouse remains the sole responsibility of the other half. There is no one else to share the burden. Likewise, caring for a handicapped child may also remain the sole responsibility of a sole breadwinner as the other half takes leave to care for the child. Thus, it does not really matter who the handicapped member of the household is, the financial burden on the immediate caregiver is heavy.
The new relief for a handicapped parent is more than 2.5 times that of a handicapped spouse and about 1.9 times that of a handicapped child. There is certainly more room for these two lower reliefs to move up for reasons stated earlier. I see no disparity between caring for a live-in handicapped parent or handicapped spouse. Both are lifelong commitments with heavy responsibilities.
I also urge the Government to look into providing more assistance for families with loved ones who are totally incapacitated and need round-the-clock assistance for basic living activities. I shall elaborate more on this in the coming COS debate.
Page: 142
Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Budget. The centrepiece of this Budget, needless to say, is the Pioneer Generation Package. The generosity included in the Pioneer Generation Package and other goodies in this year's Budget has resulted in this Budget being labelled many things.
Many I have spoken to – amongst them, senior residents in my Clementi division – have called this a \"responsive\" Budget. They have remarked that the Government has heard their call and concerns on medical care and living expenses in their later years. Many do not have children to take care of them or their children are unable to. Particularly, the Pioneer Generation is appreciative of the recognition and appreciate what the Government and fellow Singaporeans are showing them.
This Budget is many things to many people. But I think one of the commonalities among the myriad of people with an opinion on this Budget is that it is a generous one. At the very least, 450,000 of our older folks will benefit from the Pioneer Generation Package. But Mr Deputy Speaker, I would argue that because of the many provisions in the subsidies towards their healthcare cost, the beneficiaries go beyond the 450,000 older folks. This is because, rightly or wrongly, I would assume that being an Asian society, many Singaporeans are looking after their elders. So, the savings in healthcare cost spent on their parents would translate to savings for the children of the 450,000 older beneficiaries.
Sir, the children of the Pioneer Generation would be at the stage of their lifecycle where they will be having school-going children, and at the same time navigating and managing their careers in more volatile economic cycles than ever before. Taking some load off their shoulders is, indeed, a welcomed move.
Initially, when the package was announced, many younger folks and even some Pioneer Generation members were concerned that their future generation will have an increasing financial burden to carry. They were concerned that the possible shrinking tax base and greying population will present a strain on funding in fulfilling the commitment to the Pioneer Generation Package. They need not worry. The Pioneer Generation fund of $8 billion is not an endowment, but a trust fund. This amount comes directly from one Budget, thus circumventing the need to draw on our reserves for future spending on our Pioneer Generation.
Page: 143
However, Sir, I am concerned that as we move along, will the Government of the day be expected by future cohorts of seniors to be aided by similar packages? We just heard from the hon Member Mr Png Eng Huat that perhaps the age of 16 in 1965 may not be the cut-off. May I ask Mr Png what age would he feel is appropriate? Would he set it at 1949 and before? Perhaps, he could enlighten us and give us his suggestion.
With the greying population and a lower tax base, such packages may pose greater pressures on the Government and the future generation. Some years ago, we had to draw on our reserves to meet the needs of many. As they faced the challenges brought about by the global financial crisis in 2008, our Government back then was, indeed, prudent to return the $4 billion back into our reserves the moment the dark economic clouds lifted.
We need to remain prudent as before. This characterises Singapore from many others. While executing many of these aid programmes, I would go as far as to say that many a time the same prudence at policy level had at the execution level irked many of those applying for aid, and I believe Ms Janice Koh had also touched on that earlier.
Many pointed at the Government for being ham-fisted and the means-testing in place had drawn much ire. However, the Pioneer Generation Package bears no such condition and benefits all above the age of 65, all those born before 1949. This is the right thing to do for our pioneers. While the benefits drawn down by the pioneers may gradually be less as the group gets smaller, one would expect that this fund would, indeed, be sustainable. But I wonder if medical and healthcare cost inflation would affect the draw on the fund. After all, the issues and the pain over the last few years had been about rising medical cost. Therefore, the concern I expressed for future generations and the Government of the day to come up with successive packages expected of them will be a serious contention.
Even with the best intentions and preparations and planning for one's retirement, it is difficult to predict medical and healthcare cost inflation. Speak to any pensioners and they would tell you retirement planning can be a game of Russian roulette; more so for today's workers.
Sir, what is interesting is that during the conversations I had with some of the residents in Clementi on the Budget, they brought up the fact that the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong had also presented Hong Kong's Budget days after us. The same folks pointed out that they were struck by the screaming
Page: 144
headlines that Hong Kong could be in deficit in seven to 15 years if no new source of financing is found and if the Hong Kong government continues spending at the rate they have been on healthcare and welfare needs. What a difference the two governments are facing.
Our ability to be able to be in such an enviable position is the combination of consistent practice of fiscal prudence, financial discipline, competent economic management and, may I add, political will. Many years ago, with public consultation, a White Paper and a rigorous debate, the GST was introduced despite much resistance. Many packages were in place to soften the impact of the GST introduction. Even as we speak, GST rebate vouchers featured in the Government assistance for many families. As we see the Japanese having to raise GST and Hong Kong's inability to introduce the same, it does say something about how Singapore faces up to the issues and how we deal with them.
Singapore would be celebrating our Golden Jubilee, our 50th Anniversary as an independent state next year. While we celebrate our achievements and thank our pioneers for their grit, faith and support for the Government to help build the Singapore of today, we need to be vigilant and alert to changing social norms.
The details of how the Government has structured and funded the Pioneer Generation Package have been lauded by both Government and Opposition Members of Parliament. No disagreement with that. Mr Liang Eng Hwa has cautioned that we need to continue to be prudent and responsible. He is right. And I take comfort in knowing that the Government, working with the Pioneer Generation, has brought us here and will continue with the fiscal probity that we have come to expect, and, I dare say, \"enjoy the fruits of\".
However, what I am concerned about is that what is being done today may change our social norms and mores.
While we are thankful for the recognition and assistance to the Pioneer Generation and somewhat easing the financial commitment for the children of our pioneers, it must remain a social more that we must endeavour and are duty-bound to take care of our parents and our seniors. We need to watch this carefully. We cannot abdicate the care of our parents and our seniors to the state, even if the state can afford it. We cannot take our eyes off this aspect in the development of our society. Social norms do change and it can come about from the acts of the Government, however sincere and meaningful the
Page: 145
intentions may be.
In other aspects, our radar needs to be up and observing trends where specific policies to tackle issues can overlap yet with another policy that becomes a grandfather's knot. Going back a few years, we saw many of our home-grown industries thriving on the back of the Asian economic recovery and the generation of healthy profits to gain market share. This was achieved through a dependence on foreign labour to meet the demands and boost production capacities. So, weaning off this dependency is painful, but we cannot ignore this. We are on borrowed time.
However, I am not sure that productivity can be a panacea for this problem of labour. I spoke with some union members and they have seen the push towards productivity taking root. So, the rallying call by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech for a change in social norms towards productivity and, hence, higher pay, is taking root. But there are, as Ms Janice Koh mentioned, smaller micro businesses that will face a very different set of problems. Labour productivity is important. But for some of these micro businesses, they will first need labour.
On the real estate front, a property market where prices today are reported to be still two-thirds above the 2009 baseline have skyrocketed, bringing along with it rental rates in no small way, contributing to the higher cost for business owners. I am glad that the Finance Minister is maintaining the current trajectory on the property cooling measures.
Business owners have remarked that it would take time for rental costs to come down as leases renew. The effects of the measures in this respect have yet to be felt by business owners whose rental costs count as another bugbear to their businesses.
This is probably the third year in a row that the business community is calling for some help, notwithstanding the Government's call for all to boost productivity. There is evidence abound of the local business community struggling and some sinking fast. For instance, cleaning contractors not being able to find manpower, resulting in many of the tables at our hawker centres and food courts with used utensils not cleared; Town Council contractors having a difficult time to hire Singaporeans as cleaners. Our restaurants are closing down or downsizing because of the lack of labour. Examples abound.
Page: 146
Sir, a lot of the companies are calling out for help. If we ask the business community in Singapore if they are getting more and more expensive, I would say the ayes would have it. I empathise with the feeling of local business owners and totally understand their challenges. They are caught in a strait-jacketed situation of not getting the foreign workers they need and not being able to get Singaporean workers to do the type of work they need, And, now, in the face of rising business costs, they face the double jeopardy of rising labour costs of higher foreign worker levy and 1% CPF increment for their local workers.
Last but not least, I urge the Government to maintain our vigilance over our global competitiveness and not let it erode. With that, Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png, you may answer briefly to his question.
Mr Png Eng Huat: I did not ask the Government to set a lower age. I did ask the Government to err on the side of goodwill and generosity for people at the fringe of the cut-off age when they appeal to be included in the pioneer status.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sure Mr Fong is greatly enlightened by that answer. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, please.
","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): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Tomorrow, Sir.
\tPage: 147
Mr Deputy 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.\" – [Mr Gan Kim Yong]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.40 pm.
\tPage: 148
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":979,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1 (Guillotine Times)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/annex-COS 2014 _ Notice Paper on Guillotine Times (As Annex).pdf","fileName":"COS 2014 _ Notice Paper on Guillotine Times (As Annex).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2508,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Miss Penny Low","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Penny Low Budget 4 Mar 2014_chinese.pdf","fileName":"Penny Low Budget 4 Mar 2014_chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2509,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Lee Li Lian","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Lee Lilian Budget 4 March 2014_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Lilian Budget 4 March 2014_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2510,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Tin Pei Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Tin Pei Ling(1).pdf","fileName":"Tin Pei Ling(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2511,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2512,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Budget 4 March 2014_chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Budget 4 March 2014_chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2513,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Faisal abdul Manap(1).pdf","fileName":"Faisal abdul Manap(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2514,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zaqy Mohamad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf","fileName":"Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2515,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Gan Thian poh(1).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thian poh(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2516,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lim Swee Say","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Lim Swee Say(1).pdf","fileName":"Lim Swee Say(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2517,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Ellen Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Ellen Lee(1).pdf","fileName":"Ellen Lee(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2518,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20140304/vernacular-Intan(1).pdf","fileName":"Intan(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}